Senate Judiciary Committee, March 23, 2026

Transcript

716 turns. Select a time to play that moment of the video.

1. 0:17:49

   The whole settlement is null and void, and so therefore give us back the settlement. And so that was one of the concerns, but, um, I'm gonna leave that up to the will of the committee. And so that was the only thing that was added, um, in House Judiciary by an amendment. Um, again, this bill is, it's gonna free survivors to share their stories, and it will allow survivors to receive mental health support. It's gonna help uncover patterns of institutional silence and negligence, and will deter future abuse by removing the tools used to hide misconduct.

2. 0:18:29

   So I ask for your favorable consideration, and I'll take any questions.

3. 0:18:36

   All right. Any questions from the committee for the author?

4. 0:18:42

   All right. Do not have any c- we do have a question.

5. 0:18:45

   I was just gonna

6. 0:18:46

   We have a few people wanting to speak on the bill, so, um, did you wanna say something as well? Okay.

7. 0:18:52

   Mm-hmm.

8. 0:18:53

   All right. So we will go to our public testimony. There are four people signed up to speak, and I think they all signed the opposition page. I'm making the assumption they are for the bill, so you'll tell me if I'm wrong. It's okay. It's hard to read these things. Um, starting with Chuck Wills.

9. 0:19:09

   Chuck.

10. 0:19:10

    Um, you can stay there if you want. Thank you for being here with us, Mr. Wills.

11. 0:19:15

    Absolutely.

12. 0:19:24

    Uh, Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Chuck Wills, and I'm here today as a survivor of abuse by Pete Newman, the same perpetrator who abused Trey Carlock, for whom this bill is named after, while we were both at Kanakuk Kamps. I was a shy homeschooled kid from Georgia when I arrived to Kanakuk, and Pete Newman had his eyes on me from the moment I stepped off the bus. At the time, I thought it meant I was being welcomed or noticed by a leader everyone admired. I did not understand that this was the beginning of his grooming process.

13. 0:19:55

    I was six years old when we met. Pete was charismatic, funny, and trusted by parents and campers alike. He was someone who we were told to respect and look up to. That trust and influence is exactly what he used to manipulate and harm me. The CEO and president of Kanakuk Kamps, Joe White, has said Pete had a Bible study called Iron Man. He had countless kids in that, and I was one of those kids. As a part of this study, I would send Pete monthly letters answering his prompts with the goal of being rewarded at camp the following summer.

14. 0:20:30

    We were pen pals. Pete Newman leveraged the Bible to gain deeply personal and vulnerable information from children, including myself. I shared things with him in those letters that I wouldn't have even shared with my parents. Pete used his power to take control of situations. This included being present in private spaces where he should not have been. It included intimate conversations in Bible study settings that crossed age-appropriate boundaries regarding sexuality. And during my last summer as a camper at K Country, it resulted in Pete getting violent with me.

15. 0:21:03

    I was 10 at the time.

16. 0:21:08

    Sorry.

17. 0:21:12

    For many survivors, the abuse itself is only the beginning of the story. What comes afterward, the silence, the shame, and the pressure to not speak can last forever. This is why Trey's Law matters. Non-disclosure agreements in cases involving child abuse do not protect survivors. They protect institutions like Kanakuk. They protect reputations like Joe White, the board, their associates. NDAs protect abusers and the systems that allowed them to access children in the first place.

18. 0:21:48

    When survivors are forced into silence, the truth stays buried, other families remain unaware of the risks, and survivors are left to carry their stories alone. Kanakuk recently celebrated its 100th year as an institution. Every summer, thousands of children between the ages of six and 18 attend its camps, yet much of the leadership that was in place when I and many survivors attended remains in place today. Joe White, the man who baptized me, along with the leadership of Kanakuk and their associates, still take full-- still refuse to take full responsibility or ownership for what they knew was happening to me and to many others.

19. 0:22:26

    We are here today because currently the ego and greed of men outweigh the harm being done to children, but it is a new day here in Georgia. I would like to take a moment to recognize that some of the people closest to me are gonna be hearing my story, this part of my story, for the first time through this testimony, but telling the truth and pursuing justice matters more than remaining silent. I spent the majority of my 20s working at North Point Ministries, where my focus was to help create environments where students would be safe.

20. 0:22:56

    In processing this trauma, it's become more and more clear that I did this to provide something for the youth in my community that I was not given, and that was safety. The truth is, our children deserve better. Trey's Law helps bring a little more f- of that truth and justice here to earth. As Moses says, "Be sure your sins will find you out." This bill does not force anyone to speak. It simply ensures that survivors cannot be legally silenced. And three weeks ago, the Georgia House passed this bill unanimously.

21. 0:23:29

    That vote sent a powerful message. Protecting children and supporting survivors is not a partisan issue, it is a human one. I respectfully ask this committee to advance Trey's Law so it's, so that survivors are never forced into silence. Thank you for your time and for considering this important legislation.

22. 0:23:48

    Thank you, Mr. Wills. As I told you privately, thank you for being willing to share your personal story and what you went through. Nobody would expect you to move forward and have to relive this con- constantly and share with the whole world what you went through publicly. But by doing so, you are making such a big lasting impact to make sure that there's hopefully less or no one has to go, less people or no one has to go through what you went through. So appreciate your bravery in doing this.

23. 0:24:14

    Thank you, Senator.

24. 0:24:15

    Any questions from the committee? All right, thank you.

25. 0:24:19

    Thank you.

26. 0:24:21

    Next we have Todd, is it Latiolas?

27. 0:24:24

    You nailed it.

28. 0:24:25

    Ah. We talked on the phone, but I never said your last name. I just called you Todd.

29. 0:24:34

    Thank you for making the trip to be with us.

30. 0:24:36

    Yes, yes. Thank you, Chair Strickland, members of the committee. My name is Todd Latiolas. I serve as the director of policy and advocacy for the No More Victims Alliance, which was founded by Elizabeth Phillips, who you heard about a little while ago. I want to thank this committee for the opportunity to speak in adamant support of House Bill 1187. As you heard, this legislation is named for Trey Carlock, who spent much of his childhood right here in Atlanta. He was a smart, gifted, bright kid with a bright future. Instead, that future was stolen by a serial predator in an institution that failed to protect him.

31. 0:25:10

    Even after his abuser was sentenced to three life terms in 2010, Trey's nightmare continued. When he sought to hold others involved accountable through civil litigation, the process ended with a restrictive settlement that included an intimidating NDA. This gag order barred Trey from ever speaking about the institutional failures involved, and at 28, Trey died by suicide after telling a therapist, "They will always control me, and I'll never be free." House Bill 1187 ensures that no agreement can prohibit a person from talking about childhood sexual abuse or trafficking, rendering such clauses void as a matter of public policy.

32. 0:25:50

    NDAs were designed as tools of commerce, created to protect trade secrets. They were never intended to shield institutional negligence or conceal dangers to children from the public. When we allow NDAs to be a standard provision in civil settlements related to sexual abuse, we're effectively allowing the marketplace to put a price tag on public safety, and that only protects bad actors. I want to thank Representative Hong for her leadership, Governor and First Lady Kemp for naming Trey's Law a priority bill this session, and I want to commend the Georgia House for its unanimous bipartisan passage of this bill.

33. 0:26:26

    Specifically, I want to commend them for the addition of the retroactivi- re- retroactivity provision, which is critical. Uh, and they amended that provision in such a way that it only nullifies the provisions that prohibit you from talking about abuse and not the entire agreement. It sends a clear message. A contract that violates public policy and endangers children should never have been enforceable in the first place. Georgia's joining a national movement. Since Trey's Law passed in Texas and Missouri last year, nine more states have filed similar legislation.

34. 0:26:59

    And earlier this month, you heard a federal version, uh, 3966 in the Senate was introduced to US Congress by a bipartisan coalition of senators. By passing this bill, Georgia positions itself as a leader in a national shift towards transparency, and we hope Georgia joins Texas and other states to say silence is no longer for sale by passing Trey's Law this session. I've personally worked on child sex trafficking and exploitation issues for over a decade of my career, and one thing I know is that abuse thrives in silence.

35. 0:27:30

    Predators rely on it. Survivors are paralyzed by it. And it's a profound injustice when a survivor finally finds the courage to speak, only to have a legal document formalize that silence once again. It's not only harmful to them, but it puts other children and families at risk. This bill breaks this cycle. It removes barriers to truth, healing, and justice, and I respectfully urge a favorable report, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

36. 0:27:56

    All right, any questions from the committee? I don't see any. Thank you. Appreciate your work on this.

37. 0:28:02

    Thank you.

38. 0:28:03

    Next we have Mike Griffin with the Georgia Baptists.

39. 0:28:11

    I think this is the most you've been to our committee in one session, Mike. Appreciate you being with us, supporting a lot of good bills.

40. 0:28:16

    This is my 19th or 20- 20th hearing, but not here.

41. 0:28:19

    Uh, not here.

42. 0:28:20

    Anyway, been there, done that, got two or three T-shirts from here. But-

43. 0:28:23

    Mm-hmm

44. 0:28:24

    ... uh, good to be with you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mike Griffin. I'm the public affairs representative for the Ge- Georgia Baptist Mission Board. And if you, as you know, we do represent approximately 10% of the population, 1.4 million, uh, Georgians. And, uh, one of my three areas that I deal with has to do with child protection policy. And I've had the opportunity just over the last three years of teaching, uh, 18 classes entitled Reducing the Risk of Child Sexual Abuse in the Church.

45. 0:28:55

    And, uh, we do support this legislation. We think it's very important. Uh, we were the only denomination that ever really supported, uh, the 2015 Hidden Predator Act for exposing those predators in civil suits. And we also supported the 2018 Hidden Predator Act-

46. 0:29:14

    Mm-hmm

47. 0:29:14

    ... which would allow suits even on churches. That, that never did pass. But we do agree with this bill because we think there needs to be exposure. And, uh, I work with Greg Love. Uh, our, our convention works with MinistrySafe in helping to educate our churches. And one of the areas that MinistrySafe focuses on is being victim-centric. And if we will focus on those victims, uh, and make sure that we care for them, that the issues that happened related to them are exposed and dealt with appropriately, uh, I believe that being victim-centric will help us keep from having more victims because we're exposing what's going on, we're revealing it, we're protecting, we're caring for those that are being harmed the most from this type of abuse that's going on, uh, in our state and in our nation.

48. 0:30:08

    So we appreciate, uh, Representative Hong, what she's doing here. We do support Trey's Law, and, um, we're thankful for day, uh, today, and for those been willing to give their testimonies. You know, we've been dealing with the clergy bill here l-

49. 0:30:23

    Mm-hmm

50. 0:30:23

    ... recently as well, and, uh, we think it's very important that we stand up for such a time as this. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.

51. 0:30:30

    Thank you, Mr. Griffin.

52. 0:30:31

    You're welcome.

53. 0:30:31

    No questions from the committee.

54. 0:30:32

    Thank you.

55. 0:30:34

    Thank you. All right. Next, we have Brooke Mills.

56. 0:30:40

    Come on down.

57. 0:30:48

    Hi, my name is Brooke Mills. Uh, uh, I'm a self-repre- represented int- uh, I'm interest that just loves lobbying and hanging out in the committees where, where the party don't stop. Um- And I have to commend the sponsor on bringing this common sense, clean, and simple bill to the, the, to the forefront. It's, um, it's highly effective. It cuts right to the point, and I'm not having to dig through at least 50 pages o- of an LC. Um, and from a, from the, a Jewish perspective, uh, I know, doing, kinda gonna, gonna sermonize.

58. 0:31:20

    I, um, I can appreciate how it reinforces the views established in Deuteronomy 22:23, uh, uh, um, with how children, uh, uh, um, children and women harmed, um, how their, um, um, how their pain cries out to God and how this gives a chance to really reconcile that through the legal process. Um, NDAs, for far too long, have been used to silence victims, and I almost f- I actually feel inclined to, to say this bill doesn't go far enough.

59. 0:31:52

    This is a great framework, and I would love to see something that expands on this next session. Um, and I hope the committee, uh, accepts this favorably.

60. 0:32:02

    All right. Thank you, Ms. Mills. No questions from the committee. And just so everybody knows, in your folder, attached to the bill is other testimony from several others that wanted to be heard on the bill as well, and other stories that they're sharing of their experiences and folks that are supporting the bill, and all that'll be in our record as well. So with that, I'll go back to Senator Steele, who now would be the appropriate time.

61. 0:32:29

    Chairman, I'd like to, uh, make a motion to pass HB 1187, version LC 620369S.

62. 0:32:37

    We have a motion to pass from Senator Steele. Do we have a second? Second. Second from Senator Parent. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. Congratulations. Thank you so much. And thank y'all for all your work on this. Who's carrying the bill in the Senate? Um, uh, Kay Kirkpatrick, actually. Yeah. Or, okay, Kay Kirkpatrick. Yes. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate y'all. Thank you.

63. 0:33:06

    All right. We'll go back to the top of the agenda, House Bill 378. Representative Momtahan.

64. 0:33:13

    Hey.

65. 0:33:18

    No one signed up to speak on the bill. What does it do?

66. 0:33:23

    Yeah.

67. 0:33:23

    We're working off of LC 481455.

68. 0:33:27

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, before you, I've got House Bill 378, uh, LC 481455, as you stated, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this is a very simple bill. Uh, what it does, it requires state courts to put their terms of court on their website.

69. 0:33:45

    All right. Any questions for the author? What's the pleasure of the committee?

70. 0:33:49

    Just pass.

71. 0:33:50

    Motion to pass from Chairman Watson. Do we have a second? Second from Senator Parent. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. Who is... Unanimous. Who's carrying the bill in the Senate?

72. 0:34:00

    Let's see. I think we'll choose today, uh, Senator Bearden.

73. 0:34:04

    Senator Bearden, he won't look at you. All right.

74. 0:34:06

    He looks engrossed.

75. 0:34:07

    I refuse.

76. 0:34:08

    He refuses. He has the bill. Thank you.

77. 0:34:10

    Okay. Thank you.

78. 0:34:10

    Come back again sometime, just not this year. All right. House Bill 903. Chairman Powell, come on up.

79. 0:34:23

    We have a different bill.

80. 0:34:26

    We have a substitute.

81. 0:34:27

    A substitute, LC280756S.

82. 0:34:34

    If you can explain it to us, please.

83. 0:34:36

    Be glad to, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen of the committee. I bring to you today this substitute, um, and I'll just briefly speak on the original bill. That was the Administrative Procedures Act. After, uh, lengthy conversations with the governor's office, it was a little bit too deep for their, uh, belief in that, so I thought I'd do everybody a favor and I'd pull it, and let's look at it during the summer. So being one not to waste, let a bill go to waste, uh, what we've done is brought you the, uh, same version that's in Senate Bill 254 over in the Senate, over in the House, excuse me.

84. 0:35:12

    This is a coam bill. Every year for a number of years that we've been dealing with the industry itself to clean up the industry to make it more productive, but most importantly, to clean it up. A lot of moving parts with that, and we've done this every year, and what you have in front of us today is a straightforward bill. And, uh, if I could, on section one is something that is really paramount, and that's that these manufacturers that manufacture the machines, uh, they have started developing a hybrid version of the A and a B One being the kiddie games that we all know about and the other being the ones that do the non-cash redemption.

85. 0:35:52

    And this would be devastating to the a- to the industry itself because if you combine those two right now where there's a six machine limit on these, uh, redept- uh, redemption machines, if they're able to put the kiddie games in there that has the same effect, then we would be back to where we were a number of years ago. And this is, this would prohibit that. Uh, also in that same vein, that's in section one, section two deals with, uh, competitive billiard and dart tournaments.

86. 0:36:25

    I know that's hard to believe, but a lot of these billiard games and the dart games that are, uh, coin operated, well, they can't have, if, say, a, a social club or fraternal organization has tournaments, they can't give away any prizes if they're coin operated. This would allow them to give out non-cash redem- uh, redemption cards on that. Uh, also in section two, something that's very important, and that's it says that these manufacturers and, and the distributors, that they- it does not allow any revenue sharing.

87. 0:36:58

    For a number of years, because of the nature of this industry, we've always said only the licensee, and that would be the location licensee and the master license holder. They're the ones that share those profits. One that furnishes the machine and the other that runs them. And then, of course, the Lottery Commission gets a 15% amount, which last year, for the FY, it raised over $200 million for the state lottery. So it's become a very integral part of the lottery for the revenues that come in.

88. 0:37:30

    Um, section three clarifies enforcement and encourages consistency by allowing progressive discipline on these, uh, folks, sort of like the alcohol li- uh, the alcohol laws, so that they can es- establish a system of progressive discipline. Number section three also, uh, this would allow the Lottery Corporation, the COAM Advisory Board, to study and make recommendations on a number of issues, such as the lottery products given for non-cash redemption, the gift cards given as non-cash redemption, uh, the tampering of COAM machines, and what to do with unredeemable winnings and, and solutions, which would probably mean that most of it would go back to the lottery.

89. 0:38:18

    Section four, uh, deals with the cleared notice. There's a system in, that has been into place over there that, uh, some of the locations might violate the law, and sometimes they never get, uh, told about that violation until they've reached two or three others, and then the le- and then the public safety ran it. We call that stacking of charges. If a location is violating the law, they need to be notified at that point and charged appropriately instead of letting it go on for months and months.

90. 0:38:50

    And that's quite frankly what that does. Um, OSHA hearing officers. When there's any disputes, uh, with OSHA, then this would allow any appeals to go to the business court in Fulton County. Uh, section seven deals more with the progressive discipline. And then when we get to section nine, right now you have a situation because of the, uh, and I don't know any other word to say it, but the, uh, volatility of dealing and to keeping the warrant of actions.

91. 0:39:25

    Some of those are the ma- uh, the master license holders and some are the ma- uh, the, uh, location owners. For years, we've had a system into place so that if, if a location signs a contract with a master, then they've got a three-year period of time and there's a specific way for them to change or to get out from under that contract. Well, we have a lot of issues and have had more issues in past years that dealt with this. And what we have is some of the masters that don't want to lose locations or a location owner that might wish to, uh, change the location because of possible inducements.

92. 0:40:02

    Well, that goes into arbitration. And in this process, sometimes, and for no better term, frivolous, uh, rationing, that if the arbiter rules a certain way, they might drag this on out. And if it comes to the point of being frivolous, then there's a system that it could be put into place so that if it's decided that way and then it goes to court, then if it's been determined that this has been a frivolous, uh, system that's kept it going, then that side of the, uh, that side, whether it be the master or the, um, or the retailer, they would then forfeit their part of that money, and it'd be disgorged from any of those profits that are made, and that money goes immediately to the Lottery Corporation.

93. 0:40:48

    And that's quite frankly what this bill does.

94. 0:40:53

    Can I now say that I served as chairman of the Regulatory Industries Committee in the Senate after hearing this bill?

95. 0:41:01

    Any questions from the committee? Senator Beard.

96. 0:41:05

    Thank you, Chairman Powell. Question. So 15% goes to the lottery, correct?

97. 0:41:11

    Correct.

98. 0:41:11

    So on the 85% left, is that an even split?

99. 0:41:14

    That's an even split between-

100. 0:41:15

     So 40-

101. 0:41:15

     ... the location owners and the masters.

102. 0:41:17

     So each side gets 42.5% then, basically?

103. 0:41:21

     Correct.

104. 0:41:24

     Okay. That's all I got.

105. 0:41:27

     Any other questions for the author? A couple folks want to be heard on the bill. All right, if you want to step aside for a second. Um, Brooke Mills, were you want to be heard on this one?

106. 0:41:37

     Uh, not at this time.

107. 0:41:38

     Okay. And Les Snyder, do you want to add anything?

108. 0:41:42

     Um, ju- just simply that, again, Representative Powell-

109. 0:41:46

     Come on, sit on the microphone. We got big ratings tonight for the prime time Judiciary hearing. We want to keep our viewers happy.

110. 0:41:55

     Way more fun than Martin Hernandez.

111. 0:41:56

     Yeah. And-

112. 0:42:00

     Members of the committee, my name is Les Schneider and I represent the Georgia Amusement and Music Operators Association. As Representative Powell has indicated, this is all about making sure that the $200 million that's currently going for Pre-Open K continues and increases, and we don't allow any shenanigans by anybody to try to cut into that, number one. Number two, to Representative Bearden's point, to make sure that there are n- there's not frivolous litigation and people try to unnecessarily extend their contracts.

113. 0:42:33

     Uh, if they, if they are deemed to be frivolous by the judge, then in fact they would be disgorged, and that I think is the biggest incentive they could have. Um, the movement to the business court indicated this will just skip over an appeal that would normally went to the lottery director, which would further elongate the process. So again, we wanted to streamline the situation and to make sure that no one tries to claim that there is a game that is not 100% a COAMMA game a- and to do something else.

114. 0:43:07

     This requires that w- whether you're in whole or in part, you have to be licensed and the money has to go towards the lottery in the, in the percentages that we've talked about. Um, I'm happy to answer any other questions, but again, this is again a cleanup and, uh, we have the best program in the country. We generate more money for the state than anybody in the country- ... but we always have to continue to look at the, the fact that necessity is the mother of invention, and we've got to make sure that there aren't things done that hurt the program in any way and is fair to all concerned.

115. 0:43:44

     So I'm happy to answer any questions.

116. 0:43:46

     Question from Senator Bearden.

117. 0:43:49

     Long bill. Trying to work through it and I may have missed it.

118. 0:43:51

     Yeah.

119. 0:43:51

     Um, could you explain how the progressive discipline is different than the current discipline?

120. 0:43:57

     Yeah. Um-

121. 0:43:57

     And what page would that be on?

122. 0:43:59

     So-

123. 0:43:59

     'Cause I'm trying to find it again

124. 0:44:00

     ... th- there's a reference to-

125. 0:44:02

     Thank you

126. 0:44:02

     ... uh, progressive discipline in various parts of the bill. Um, if you look at page six, lines 131 to 136. If you look at the bill on page eight, uh, lines 184 to 189. And if you look at the bill on page 10, on lines 228 and 232, all of these goes to the concept of progressive discipline.

127. 0:44:34

     And again, as with alcohol and other things, somebody gets a warning, they get a fine, they get a suspension, and they could get a, a, a fine and revocation. And again, no one is not wanting to have anybody not receive punishment this deserved. But what was happening in some instances is, as Representative Powell indicated, they would hold up a charge and not tell the owner that they had done some- they or one of their employees had done something wrong, and then there'd be two others, and they weren't told about that until the end, and then their license would be revoked.

128. 0:45:10

     And it's contrary to what we all do with alcohol and what we do with almost every single other form of, um, progressive discipline, and that's what this calls for, to make sure we're doing that. And in many instances, they were doing that, but there were other instances that were not. And it, this is not the thing to beat up on a small business owner who might have a recalcitrant employee or has an employee that is on a frolic of their own and the owner of the business never learns about it until it's too late.

129. 0:45:43

     Okay. Thank you.

130. 0:45:45

     Yeah.

131. 0:45:46

     Other questions from the committee?

132. 0:45:49

     All right. You do have a question, Senator Rhett?

133. 0:45:52

     Who police, who, who-

134. 0:45:54

     Pull your mic down.

135. 0:45:56

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Who policed the, the activities to make sure that people are doing what they're supposed to do?

136. 0:46:01

     There is a, lottery has inspectors themselves. Um, I know the GBI has often helped out and is paid a certain amount of money to enforce the law, and there is some local sheriffs and DAs that also are involved in making sure that the law is followed. And none of that has been undercut by what we're talking about here.

137. 0:46:24

     Other questions from the committee?

138. 0:46:29

     All right, thank you.

139. 0:46:30

     Thank you.

140. 0:46:31

     That's everybody that signed to speak on the bill. What's the pleasure of the committee?

141. 0:46:38

     Pass.

142. 0:46:38

     Motion due passed from Leader Jones, a second from Senator Rhett. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand.

143. 0:46:48

     It is unanimous. Is Senator Cowsert carrying it? Who's carrying it?

144. 0:46:52

     Believe that or not, yes.

145. 0:46:54

     Okay. That's what I thought. Wanted to make sure. All right.

146. 0:46:57

     That's how many years of senior wisdom when people disappoint me.

147. 0:47:00

     Well, don't say anything else and mess that up, so.

148. 0:47:04

     Thank you, ladies.

149. 0:47:04

     All right. Thank you. Well, we do have a comment.

150. 0:47:08

     I was gonna ask him where'd he get that tie from?

151. 0:47:11

     From the pink tie store.

152. 0:47:14

     It was cheap.

153. 0:47:14

     Yeah.

154. 0:47:17

     All right. House Bill 1061. Chairwoman Camp, come on down. We are working off a committee substitute LC492850S.

155. 0:47:33

     Okay.

156. 0:47:34

     The floor is yours.

157. 0:47:35

     All right. Um, is this the committee substitute from you guys?

158. 0:47:42

     Yes. Do you have that substitute in front of you?

159. 0:47:44

     I do not. I do not.

160. 0:47:45

     We'll get you one. Do, uh-

161. 0:47:46

     All right. Thank you. Um, I don't believe it's fundamentally different than the original.

162. 0:47:51

     No, the only... Well, we'll get you a copy. The only change will be on lines 18 through 20. You'll see the addition we discussed.

163. 0:47:59

     Okay. All right, wonderful. Well, this bill known as the Mandy Ballinger Act creates the organizational, thank you, organizational committee to raise the age. So 17-year-olds who are charged with non-violent crimes, um, would have an opportunity to have their case processed through juvenile court versus superior court. And, um, in doing so, some states have been less successful at this that did not have an implementation committee do this initially to figure out things like transportation, housing, logistics, um, cost.

164. 0:48:35

     So this is the first part of the bill that Mandy Ballinger actually passed in 2024. Um, so hopefully once we have all this together and we're able to move forward with it, then we'll be able to change the code sections. So, um, individuals who are charged with non-violent crimes as 17-year-olds will not have to go through superior court and, um, be housed in jail when they went from, you know, biology the day before to being housed in a jail.

165. 0:49:08

     Earlier today, we were talking about this bill and talking about Chairwoman Ballinger, and if you don't mind me putting you on the spot, you made a comment to me, you could say it better than I could ever say it, about her legacy and all the work that she did. And, um, I'll first say I got to work with her on a lot of different issues going back when I first served in the House, and I remember her coming down when Henry was really little, coming down to campaign for me and spending time on the campaign trail with me in very tough elections way back in the day, too. But I watched her passion on issues like this and issues affecting young people in our state, and I got to be in the trenches several times with her working on this issue over the years.

166. 0:49:41

     But you said it best. You mind saying what you said to me privately earlier today about her legacy? 'Cause I just think it should be said.

167. 0:49:47

     Well, someone mentioned that because we're not passing the whole complete bill that was passed in 2024 in the House, that we're doing this version, that this, um, this was a watered-down version and that it was shameful because this was her legacy. But I would dare say her legacy is, is her family, especially Henry. And I know we were all running around the University of Georgia last August, and Henry was about to be a freshman in college, and she was so proud of him. She had so much love for children, so much respect for the potential all children had, and I, I loved the passion that she had on this.

168. 0:50:27

     And when I took the role of being chair of Judiciary Juvenile, which was overwhelming, it still is to some degree, there was a stack in her office that was about this high where she'd been researching this and contacting people all over the country since 2018.

169. 0:50:41

     Mm.

170. 0:50:42

     She passionately wanted to make sure that children who made mistakes when they were 17 did not have a life sentence where they were felons for the rest of their life when it was a non-violent situation.

171. 0:50:55

     And I appreciate you sharing that. I'll... The change we made with the substitute just adds two other individuals to this committee, and that is two other sheriffs that'll be appointed by the chairperson of the House Juvenile, um, Justice Committee, Judiciary Juvenile Committee. I'm saying it backwards. It used to be called Juvenile Justice.

172. 0:51:13

     Mm-hmm.

173. 0:51:14

     And the Senate, uh, Judiciary Committee. And the reason, and I thought that was important, and I know, the, I think I'd say the chairwoman, um, supports that change as well, is just one of the concerns we've had over the years is the logistics of this. There's the policy and then-

174. 0:51:29

     Wow

175. 0:51:29

     ... there's also just logistically how do you transport these young people in particular, and that's a big concern from a lot of sheriffs around our state. So we thought having additional sheriffs involved may help with this, um, committee as it moves forward.

176. 0:51:42

     And I completely welcome that. I think that's a good addition. Thank you.

177. 0:51:45

     Thank you for your work on it. And, um, any questions for the authors? A few people want to be heard on the bill. All right, thank you. First we have, is it Margaret? Is it Coward am I saying?

178. 0:51:58

     Cawood.

179. 0:51:59

     Cawood, come on down, with Department of Juvenile Justice.

180. 0:52:05

     Thank you for being with us.

181. 0:52:07

     Thank you. Um, we just appreciate the planning process that's outlined in the bill, and specifically the identification of the necessary resources, including the capital outlay, operational expenses, and staffing needs. And as a listed member of the organizational committee, we welcome the opportunity to work with our partners to design an effective system to provide rehabilitation to these older teens.

182. 0:52:35

     Oh, thank you. All right, thank you. No questions. Uh, Ms. Gail Murray.

183. 0:52:44

     Hey, Ms. Murray.

184. 0:52:45

     Thank you.

185. 0:52:46

     Come on down.

186. 0:52:49

     Good evening.

187. 0:52:54

     To the members of this honorable committee and to the chair, thank you. My name is Gail Bacon Murray. I'm the director of the Youth Advocacy Division for the Georgia Public Defender Council. I am a career public defender. I've been a public defender for 29 and a half years. I spent 10, I've spent the last 10 years in juvenile court, and somewhere in between there I spent three years representing children prosecuted as adults. I am here on behalf of GPDC to ask that we be included in the organiz- organizational committee established by the Mandy Ballinger Act.

188. 0:53:28

     Youth defenders represent the majority of youth charged with delinquent offenses in juvenile court. We offer the perspective of day-to-day interaction with children like no other organization. We're the only statewide agency responsible for representing children in delinquency court matters. We are the only agency that can explain implementation of raising the age and how it will work in real time from Atlanta to Albany to Columbus to Cordele and all points in between.

189. 0:54:01

     As you may know, our director, Director Ali, her background boasts years of experience and devotion to the children of our state. I, um, I think that's kinda why she and I connect so well. Um, I'm an only child, and I think it means that I've really enjoyed working with children from PTA to Jack and Jill of America Incorporated. Um, my children were here a couple weeks ago with Jack and Jill Day at the Capitol, to being a Sunday school teacher. With Director Ali's leadership, GPDC will be committed and a relevant partner to the organizational committee.

190. 0:54:36

     Respectfully, I ask that you make an amendment to the Mandy Ballinger Act to include the Georgia Public Defender Council in the committee considering this important issue. Thank you.

191. 0:54:47

     All right, any questions from the committee? All right, thank you. All right, Polly McKinney, Voices of Georgia's Children. Someone else that has worked on this issue for a long time.

192. 0:55:07

     I'm Polly McKinney, as you just heard, I guess. Uh, I, uh, actually wrote testimony, which is unusual for me to deliver written testimony, but in Mandy Ballinger's honor, I felt like I should do it the grown-up way. So here we go. Um, Voices for Georgia's Children supports House Bill 1061, the Mandy Ballinger Act. Um, and we do so for a lot of reasons. If 17-year-olds move into the juvenile system, roughly 760 to 920 additional youth a year would likely be served in probation or community programs.

193. 0:55:41

     That's a meaningful increase, and it requires deliberate expansion of assessment capacity, behavioral health services, and evidence-based programming, and it cannot, you know, expanding juvenile court jurisdiction cannot just be assumed into existence. We are pleased that House Bill 1061 creates the structure to evaluate the capacity before any jurisdictional change takes effect, and includes expertise from an array of relevant sectors. The cross-agency coordination is necessary because the impact will not be uniform across the state.

194. 0:56:12

     Geographic variation means implementation will look very different in rural counties than in large urban jurisdictions, and planning must reflect that reality. The goal, if the goal is long-term public safety, which it is, um, and reduced re-offending, then capacity coordination and measurable outcomes matter more than the jurisdictional label alone. Voices supports this bill because it reflects a deliberate developmentally informed approach and ensures that any future change is grounded in evidence, fiscal clarity, and operational readiness.

195. 0:56:45

     And so we respectfully ask for your support of this bill. Thank you.

196. 0:56:51

     All right. Thank you, Ms. McKinney. No questions from the committee. Last up, Brooke Mills. Were you wanting to be heard on this one?

197. 0:57:07

     Hello again. Um, my name is Brooke Mills, and honestly, it's short, it's sweet, it's to the point. Um, and if anything, I actually really encourage that the, um, committee adopts the, um, suggested amendment from the prior speaker to give this more of a bigger table ra- a, a bigger tent approach to give it a more rounded, um, set of recommendations after the summer committee. Um, otherwise, I encourage that the committee, um, um, takes this, um, um, um, take, takes this and sends it to the floor.

198. 0:57:40

     All right, do you have... Is there a question for Ms. Mills?

199. 0:57:43

     Actually, for the author, um, given the second speaker raising it, is there a reason that we don't have the Public Defender's Council included, or is it just-

200. 0:57:52

     I don't, I think-

201. 0:57:52

     ... not how it was, how it was formulated?

202. 0:57:54

     Thank you for the question. I think honestly it was probably just an oversight, um, because we have a whole litany of individuals that would be involved in the process. Um, it would not, I mean, I would agree to the amendment if it was made.

203. 0:58:07

     Okay. Thank you.

204. 0:58:07

     Oh, thank you.

205. 0:58:12

     Any other questions from the committee? So there is a legislative oversight committee for the Georgia Public Defender Council, that Mr. Walker has pointed out to me as well. That committee could appoint someone to be a member of this committee, if that's the way we wanna go, or we could go a different direction, however you wanna, um, have that person added. Is there any suggestions from the committee? Let's get a motion on the bill first. Everyone's sounded, speak on the bill. What's the pleasure of the committee?

206. 0:58:39

     I'll, I would like to move to do pass.

207. 0:58:41

     Motion to do pass by committee substitute from Senator Parent. Do we have a second? Second for Chairman Watson. So, um, any amendments? Would someone like to offer that amendment? Senator Parent?

208. 0:58:56

     Yes. Thank you, um, Mr. Chairman. And with the, um, with the ascent of the author, I would like to offer an amendment, uh, related to the Public Defenders Council. However, um, listening to your comments, Mr. Chairman, I admit that I'm not certain what is the right way to go with that. I see Mr. Walker looking over, and just want it to be done in, in the best way possible, as I'm sure all committee members would agree with that.

209. 0:59:23

     It, it's a policy call, which would be-

210. 0:59:25

     Yeah

211. 0:59:25

     ... do we want to have that industry represented?

212. 0:59:28

     So either it would be just putting the Public Defenders Council in the legislation, or-

213. 0:59:33

     Or having the committee appoint a member the way, uh, the, the-

214. 0:59:38

     Yeah

215. 0:59:38

     ... sheriffs are appointed. Uh, the two sheriffs on lines 18 through 20 are, one is appointed by the chairperson of the House Committee on Judiciary Juvenile, and the other is appointed by the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. You could have a member that is appointed by that legislative oversight committee, or you could just name, um, a, a representative from the council, would be another option as a policy.

216. 0:59:59

     There is an oversight committee, but in- I, I actually think it might be better if, um, the organization appointed a member themselves is, is my view on that. But open, of course, to what other members of the committee think.

217. 1:00:15

     Is her title executive director as well? Where was... Is that a sheet?

218. 1:00:24

     She's behind the posts there. There she is.

219. 1:00:28

     Ms. Murray, come back up. We're talking about you.

220. 1:00:35

     Was there a particular suggestion that you had for the committee?

221. 1:00:39

     Well, if it was up to me, it would be me, but-

222. 1:00:42

     We don't have any names in here that-

223. 1:00:45

     Um,

224. 1:00:48

     I would, um... Thank you.

225. 1:00:49

     You're welcome.

226. 1:00:51

     Thank you. I would say, um, the director or her appointee, or his or her appointee.

227. 1:00:59

     That would be- that would go along with, um, the Prosecuting Attorney's Council and Georgia Association of Criminal Defense. It's the executive director-

228. 1:01:06

     That would make sense, yeah

229. 1:01:07

     ... or their d- his or her designee.

230. 1:01:08

     Designee.

231. 1:01:09

     Mm-hmm.

232. 1:01:12

     That makes sense to me.

233. 1:01:14

     Is that what you're offering, Senator Parent?

234. 1:01:15

     Um, yes. Let's, let's, um... It would be, yeah, the executive director of the... And we'll have the exact wording public.

235. 1:01:22

     The, the director is the statutory term.

236. 1:01:24

     Yes.

237. 1:01:24

     Yes, it is. Okay. But-

238. 1:01:25

     The director of the Georgia Public Defender Council.

239. 1:01:28

     Yes.

240. 1:01:28

     Or-

241. 1:01:29

     Or his or her designee. Does that sound right?

242. 1:01:32

     Yes.

243. 1:01:33

     Is there a second to the proposed amendment?

244. 1:01:37

     Second.

245. 1:01:38

     Second.

246. 1:01:41

     Second. Any discussion on the proposed amendment? All those in favor of the amendment, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. All right. Is there any other amendments?

247. 1:01:54

     Just one. I, I would need to make conforming changes to reflect the committee would now have 15 members and some grammatical changes.

248. 1:02:00

     All right.

249. 1:02:01

     Thank you.

250. 1:02:01

     It'll be part of the amendment that was passed. All right. Motion to pass by committee substitute as amended. All those in favor, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. And who is carrying this one in the Senate?

251. 1:02:13

     Senator Chuck Payne.

252. 1:02:14

     Okay. All right. Thank you.

253. 1:02:17

     Well, thank you, committee.

254. 1:02:20

     All right. Chairman Crowe, are you still around?

255. 1:02:23

     Yes, sir.

256. 1:02:24

     Come on up. Present House Bill 1075, another committee substitute. The underlying bill, I'll say as you're walking up, that was worked on by Representative Chastain. I was working on a very similar issue with making pimping and pandering a felony. He went a little different direction with that, but we discussed it and I think the direction I went's gonna, um, probably be the stronger way to go on that. So he agreed to work with me, with Chairman Crowe, on this potential substitute for the committee.

257. 1:02:55

     Another very important issue. And we are working off of LC630165S. Floor is yours.

258. 1:03:05

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Uh, always great to be primetime Senate duty.

259. 1:03:11

     Um, it's the hot time for viewers right now, too. You're at the 7:30 market, so.

260. 1:03:15

     Yeah. Hope I, hope I don't mess it up.

261. 1:03:16

     Should have done makeup.

262. 1:03:17

     Yeah, I should have.

263. 1:03:18

     Yeah.

264. 1:03:19

     But it doesn't help.

265. 1:03:20

     No.

266. 1:03:20

     Um, so this bill now as it's written, uh, the substitute to House Bill 1075, uh, essentially what it would do is it would create a type of habitual violator, um, statute or punishment for folks who continuously violate misdemeanor crimes under Chapter 5 or Chapter 6 of Title 16. Uh, Title 16, Chapter 5 are crimes against persons. Uh, Chapter 6, Title 16 are sex crimes. What this would do is if they, uh, violated, on the fourth conviction of a violation of one of those crimes within a 10-year period, that would then become a felony, much like a habitual violator for DUI.

267. 1:03:59

     Um, what prompted this, and the reason I brought it a little bit later, is back in February, um, we had the, um, inaugural conference for the Georgia Association of Realtors here in Atlanta, and, uh, there was three members from Savannah who were walking back to the Marriott through some of the passageways, um, that connect to the Marriott. And a, uh, a fella walked up and just, uh, walked in between them and turned and punched one of them straight, right in the face, just un, un, uh, provoked, uh, unwarranted.

268. 1:04:33

     And, uh, turns out that this was the third or fourth time he's done that. In fact, the news ran a story on it, uh, entitled Serial Sucker Puncher Strikes Again. So, um, this guy had done this three or four times, and the problem is, is that all of these convictions, uh, no matter how many times he does it and how many people he victimizes, they're all gonna be misdemeanors punishable by a year in jail and up to $1,000 fine. So, um, I thought that it would be fitting that for somebody who continues to violate these crimes, especially when they're involving the victims, uh, human victims especially with, uh, Chapter 5 and 6 of Title 16, that, uh, that should eventually necessitate it becoming a, uh, felony offense.

269. 1:05:17

     So that's the bill, Mr. Chairman. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

270. 1:05:21

     All right. Questions for the new author?

271. 1:05:26

     No one signed up to speak on the bill. What's the pleasure of the committee?

272. 1:05:31

     Move to pass.

273. 1:05:31

     Motion to pass by committee substitute from Chairman Watson. Do we have a second?

274. 1:05:34

     Second.

275. 1:05:35

     Second from Senator Bearden. Any discussion? All those in favor, raise your hand.

276. 1:05:44

     One.

277. 1:05:44

     Five opposed. Two. And who is carrying this one in the Senate?

278. 1:05:50

     Well, it's, uh, just came about sort of quickly. I was gonna ask, uh, Senator Bearden if he wouldn't mind doing it, if he, if he would be so kind.

279. 1:05:58

     Sure.

280. 1:06:01

     Thank you very much. Thank you, committee.

281. 1:06:13

     All right, thank you.

282. 1:06:21

     Chairman Cow- I was talking when you said that. Who'd you say that's gonna be carrying it?

283. 1:06:25

     Senator Bearden.

284. 1:06:25

     Senator Bearden's carrying it. All right. Thank you. Representative Ehrhart, come on up. House Bill 1076. We're back to as passed the House.

285. 1:06:40

     Mm-hmm.

286. 1:06:41

     Working off of LC630048. Floor is yours.

287. 1:06:47

     That's correct. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Um, I have joining me today, um, uh, former State Senator Chuck Clay, um, also a former prosecutor in Cobb County, I think, and a member of this committee for about 12 years. I'm grateful for his- ... um, support, um, with this bill. Um, committee, I, I present for your consideration HB 1076, um, which is essentially a public safety bill with the purpose of protecting the lives, the wellbeing of law enforcement officers, as well as members of the general public.

288. 1:07:22

     This bill will make it a felony to use a motor vehicle to knowingly obstruct, hinder, block, or otherwise interfere with law enforcement officers, uh, during the discharge of their official duties. Currently, this even- this, uh, particular offense is prosecuted under a more general obstruction law as a misdemeanor, and the obstruction code currently makes no distinction between a general non-dangerous obstruction, examples might be lying to police, tampering with evidence, fleeing on foot, versus obstructing with a 4,000-pound motor vehicle.

289. 1:07:54

     The reason for carving out obstruction with a motor vehicle from the general obstruction code is because of the dramatically greater risk of danger and personal injury associated with using a motor vehicle dis- to disrupt an active police operation. If this vehicle also happens to be driven by someone with the intent to obstruct or impede that operation, the outcome-

290. 1:08:15

     I-

291. 1:08:15

     ... could be dire, it could be deadly for both our law enforcement officers and the people engaging in the obstruction. It is dangerous conduct for all involved and should be taken seriously. Georgia is not alone in this concern. From 2020 to 2025, there has been a 230% increase in state-level bills filed to combat vehicle-related crime like this one, and why is that? I think we need to be very clear about the danger.

292. 1:08:45

     Over the past 20 years, all types of motor vehicle incidents, on average, have been either the number one or number two cause of death and injury to law enforcement officers, second only to gunfire. From 2023 to 2024, deaths to on-duty law enforcement officers as the result of all motor vehicle incidents rose by 48%. The danger is real. A motor vehicle in the hands of an ill-intentioned person is a lethal weapon. That is likely why 24 other states have classified this dangerous conduct as a felony.

293. 1:09:19

     The goal of HB 1076 is to provide an enhanced deterrent to obstruction with a motor vehicle by increasing the penalty from a misdemeanor to a felony. It is very likely that many individuals who might engage in this kind of obstruction may not actually anticipate that their actions could end in injury or death to themselves or law enforcement opera- of- officers, yet these scenarios escalate quickly, and the risk is high. We want to deter this crime before injury or death occurs.

294. 1:09:52

     As with many criminal offenses, of course, this, of this nature, intent will need to be proven and will be a prerequisite for the con- conviction of this crime. Members, classifying this particular offense as a felony is necessary because of the extremely high risk of potential danger. Legislatures just like ours across the country often treat non-violent weapons-related conduct as inherently serious because of the risk and the possibility of rapid escalation. Um, this bill is endorsed by both the Georgia Sheriff's Association, um, and the Chiefs of Police.

295. 1:10:26

     And Mr. Chairman, that is the, that is the bill, and I'll certainly stand for any questions.

296. 1:10:31

     Any questions from the committee for the author or Mr. Clay? Do you have a question?

297. 1:10:37

     Many praises, and Lord willing- ... I've said all I need to say.

298. 1:10:40

     Um-

299. 1:10:41

     But I'll respond to-

300. 1:10:42

     The board is lighting up. Leader Jones.

301. 1:10:44

     There they go.

302. 1:10:45

     Well, I should've shut up when I had.

303. 1:10:47

     I just had two... Thank you, Mr. I just had two qu- quick questions. Number one, in the sta- standpoint of stationary motor vehicle, what would that constitute? And then number two, is there a requirement that, of injury before this becomes a felony?

304. 1:11:00

     Um, no. This, this, this, there is no requirement of, of injury. If injury occurs, um, y- y- then that, that crime has been taken to a whole different... Now you're talking about aggravated assault. So this is the conduct, the dangerous conduct that leads up to that. Um, in terms of your question about the stationary vehicle, and this is, this is something I've been asked about quite a bit. I've had the opportunity to speak with law enforcement about the nature of, you know, what kind of harm does a stationary vehicle, uh, uh, pose to an active police operation?

305. 1:11:32

     Um, so using a vehicle to block officers, whether you're blocking them in or blocking them out, is, is, according to police, is not a benign action. It is not an action without potential serious consequences, and that's for a host of reasons, um, the first of which is it prevents emergency response for anyone who might be in need of help. It escalates confrontations, not just between obstructors and law enforcement officers, but sometimes with bystanders. Um, and if you ask any police officer, they will tell you a stationary vehicle used to purposely interfere with a law enforcement operation distracts those officers- At a time when they should be focused on their operation and the safety of all involved.

306. 1:12:15

     Um, and that distraction can enhance the danger. So those are just a few of the potential risks and problems associated with, with using a vehicle just simply to block an operation prior to escalation.

307. 1:12:30

     Hear questions from the committee for the author, Mr. Clay. Senator Parent.

308. 1:12:35

     Thank you. I just, um, thank you so much. I just want to make sure I understand. So under the existing statute around, um, obstruction with a vehicle, that's aggravated assault, I believe, currently?

309. 1:12:48

     W- w- well, it, it, that would be, aggravated assault would be, um... I'm sorry, restate your question. The current code?

310. 1:12:55

     Under the current code-

311. 1:12:56

     Right

312. 1:12:56

     ... which is, um, does it take into account stationary vehicles?

313. 1:13:03

     Currently under code, using a vehicle to impede or interfere with a police operation is a misdemeanor.

314. 1:13:09

     Is a misdemeanor currently?

315. 1:13:10

     Is a misdemeanor. Mm-hmm.

316. 1:13:11

     Okay, so if-

317. 1:13:13

     If you use that-

318. 1:13:14

     Oh, go ahead.

319. 1:13:14

     Okay, so, so again, if you use that vehicle then to assault an officer, you, you've taken it down to a different level. Um, s- so that is not what this bill... That, that remains in place. Aggravated assault, the charge of aggravated assault for assaulting a police officer with a vehicle remains in place. So this addresses all of the behavior that leads up to that point, the interference, the impeding, the blocking, all of the dangerous behavior that, uh, impedes that police operation.

320. 1:13:40

     If there's contact, uh, uh, Senator Parent, then that would be an aggravated assault.

321. 1:13:44

     That's what I was... Thank you.

322. 1:13:46

     I'm sorry. I should have let you answer.

323. 1:13:46

     Um, but I guess my question is, so if I am, if I park my car and I, and it can be proven that I'm knowingly trying to, you know, interfere with a cop car going in some direction, and then I just get out and I, like, leave it, that would be, um, a felony under this-

324. 1:14:05

     Yes

325. 1:14:05

     ... and even if no one's hurt, and-

326. 1:14:07

     No, it, it-

327. 1:14:08

     And I just, like, parked my car?

328. 1:14:09

     No, if, if, if you, if it is proven, if intent is proven that you willfully and knowingly used your car, drove it there, parked it for the express purpose of interfering and impeding that police operation, this law makes it a felony to do that.

329. 1:14:23

     Right. I, yeah, I'm struggling with the relative harm, um-

330. 1:14:28

     Mm-hmm

331. 1:14:28

     ... if, if no one's injured and the, you know.

332. 1:14:30

     Right.

333. 1:14:30

     That, that, it seems a little harsh to me-

334. 1:14:32

     Right

335. 1:14:32

     ... but I, I understand your intention.

336. 1:14:33

     I do, I do understand that. I've heard some comparisons-

337. 1:14:34

     Mm-hmm

338. 1:14:34

     ... drawn to some of the felonies that we have on the book in Georgia as related to weapons charges. Um, there are felonies in Georgia with, that have to do with, with weapons that don't involve actually, um, firing a gun or actually causing death or injury. Um, that is because of the high potential and the seriousness of that lethal weapon. Um, my contention here is that a, a vehicle used in the purpose that we described here, meaning someone that intends to impede, becomes a lethal, becomes a lethal weapon.

339. 1:15:04

     Um, and I'd just say you don't have to look far from home, and it's not unique to Atlanta by any means. Uh, but we had that tragic incident where a fast food restaurant was burned down. Uh, a, a mother driving through there, uh, was obstructed by people intentionally blocking that road, and shots rang out. She was dead. That mother wound up in a morgue driving on a public road because people were blocking access. You think of these road races where people going 95, 100 miles an hour in Atlanta, and people intentionally block the side roads so law enforcement doesn't get to and doesn't have the opportunity to stop a car in the middle of Atlanta at 95 miles an hour.

340. 1:15:45

     Those things do happen, and we need to say no.

341. 1:15:49

     Thank you.

342. 1:15:52

     Leader Jones.

343. 1:15:53

     I just have one more. Um, dealing with the stationary vehicle again, so let's say that an officer's just trying to speak to someone and they jump into their vehicle, lock the door. At that point in time, they are actually using the car as a mechanism to obstruct. Would this come under that?

344. 1:16:09

     Excuse me. Let me clarify, make sure I understand. The individual jumps into the police officer's car?

345. 1:16:12

     No, no, no. Jumps into their own vehicle-

346. 1:16:14

     Oh, and then-

347. 1:16:14

     ... and just locks the door.

348. 1:16:15

     Understood.

349. 1:16:15

     They are using the car as a mechanism to obstruct because he's trying to conduct an investigation.

350. 1:16:20

     Right.

351. 1:16:20

     Would that scenario come under this?

352. 1:16:22

     You know, a- a-

353. 1:16:23

     And-

354. 1:16:23

     Go ahead

355. 1:16:24

     ... and, and why would it not?

356. 1:16:26

     Um, y- so what you're saying is that, that the person who's been pulled over for whatever reason, they lock themselves-

357. 1:16:32

     Yeah, they locked-

358. 1:16:32

     ... inside their car and just refused-

359. 1:16:34

     Correct

360. 1:16:34

     ... refused to get out.

361. 1:16:35

     Yeah.

362. 1:16:36

     Um, I, I, I don't have a clear and present answer for that one. I'm sorry. I, I, what I would tell you is that at that point I think it would be up to the discretion of the police officer to determine whether or not, um... I'm not clear on that. I'm not sure in that scenario-

363. 1:16:49

     I would simply add-

364. 1:16:49

     At this point, I'll have to get-

365. 1:16:49

     I'd add to that, that, uh, whether it's jaywalking, speeding 10 miles an hour, or murder, uh, intent is a, is a key component, part of mens rea, as they taught us in law school many years ago, is an integral part of any criminal offense, any criminal offense in Georgia. So, you know, uh, the, uh, district attorneys, M- Mr. Skandalakis' team back there, other DAs, would look and say, "Can I prove the intent that this person was not just locking of themselves in a car either in panic or anger, but were they using that, uh, with the intent to obstruct public safety, fire personnel, first responders-

366. 1:17:27

     Mm-hmm

367. 1:17:28

     ... from a, from, from a, from, from solving, stopping, or preventing a crime?"

368. 1:17:33

     Okay. All right. Thank you.

369. 1:17:36

     Senator Rhett.

370. 1:17:38

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just trying to get a clear definition of obstruction, because it seems like it could be subjective between the police officer or the person as to what you call obstruction.

371. 1:17:50

     Right. Well, and there's nothing new about that. I mean, it's, uh, obstruction is a subjective term. What, what I, you know, even, um, y- you know, what I d- see as obstruction may be different than what you see as... In the end it's going to be, I guess, the, the opinion of the law enforcement officers, prosecuting attorneys, the DA.

372. 1:18:07

     And, and defense counsel.

373. 1:18:08

     And we're talking about $100,000 or one to five years sentence.

374. 1:18:12

     That is not in... And, and that fine, and that, that was suggested by ledge counsel, and that is in accordance with other- Other felonies of that type

375. 1:18:23

     Senator Bearden.

376. 1:18:25

     Just to go back to my m- minority leader's comment, I think at that situation, the officer I would hope would use a misdemeanor obstruction on that. Although, this, if this passes, of course, the option's there. I would think as a parked vehicle, more like blocking in a law enforcement officer or officers, trying to put them in a very dangerous position where they can't leave the scene. But, um, in the scenario that you gave out, I would think and hope they would go with misdemeanor obstruction. But again, if this passes, it's on the books, so.

377. 1:18:57

     To me, it's pretty straightforward. I mean, a, a vehicle is such a, um, dangerous weapon to have, and anytime someone wants to use a vehicle, in my opinion, whether it's stationary, whether it's moving, you are creating a situation where someone's gonna get killed, and you're putting an officer in a possible position. And to me, for everybody's safety, we wanna make sure that, in my opinion at least, that that's a felony.

378. 1:19:21

     Yeah.

379. 1:19:21

     And I just, I think it goes, I think it's common sense.

380. 1:19:23

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

381. 1:19:24

     And, and so I-

382. 1:19:24

     I agree

383. 1:19:25

     ... we could argue about every word, what it means to obstruct, hinder, block. We have grand juries, we have prosecutors, and ultimately have a jury of 12 that'll hear these cases.

384. 1:19:34

     Mm-hmm.

385. 1:19:34

     And, um, but I think it's great to send a message that if you're gonna use a vehicle to interfere with law enforce operations, you are raising the level of what could happen on the scene, and in my opinion, that should be a felony.

386. 1:19:44

     Yeah. Thank you. And, and a- and again, we are talking about not just protecting our law enforcement officers, but all of those involved in these scenarios.

387. 1:19:51

     Mm-hmm.

388. 1:19:51

     I mean, currently there is, in, in, in my opinion, uh, a misdemeanor and a $100 fine is not a sufficient deterrent for using a 4,000-pound vehicle-

389. 1:19:59

     Right

390. 1:19:59

     ... uh, and placing officers and bystanders at risk. So we wanna make sure that we are raising the level of deterrency here to where, um, you know, this means something and, uh, serves to deter this sort of a behavior, dangerous behavior.

391. 1:20:11

     We're all getting ahead of ourselves with our floor debate, so I'll try to get back on point. Um, 'cause I know it's getting late. That's everyone that had questions for now. If you wanna step aside for a second, two other people wanna be heard on the bill. Um, Brandi Blue with ACLU, come on down.

392. 1:20:32

     Thank you for being with us.

393. 1:20:34

     Hello, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Lovely to see you this dusk evening. Um, my name is Brandi Blue. I'm a legislative fellow with the ACLU of Georgia, and I'm here to talk, basically echo some concerns that have already been brought up about this bill. So we recognize that the goal of this bill is to reduce confrontations between police and drivers, but as discussed a little before, we feel the conduct is already sufficiently criminalized by the Georgia Code.

394. 1:21:06

     That's Section 16-10-24, Obstruction of a Law Enforcement Using Violence, is a felony. So if someone uses a moving vehicle to obstruct law enforcement activities, that could easily be considered violence, and they could be charged with a felony. If for some reason that s- code section fails, Section 16-5-C21 can step in. It establishes a felony punishable by one to 20 years in prison for aggravated assault, like Senator Parent was talking about, and that's when you take any object and cause h- bodily harm.

395. 1:21:43

     The second thing I'd like to address is also about the stationary versus moving vehicle. Um, it's a concern for us that the same penalty would be considered for someone actively, aggressively obstructing law enforcement with their car and someone who has a parked vehicle. Along with some of the great examples you guys already shared, I came up with a couple more that are just a little food for thought. So for example, you're parked with your windows up, you've got your music on, or you're on the phone, and you're parked on the side of the road.

396. 1:22:18

     Maybe you have a hearing impairment and you don't hear the officer tell you to move your car. You could find yourself in court for a felony for that, depending on how the officer's feeling that day. Or you could witness an incident, this one's more intentional, pull your car over to the side of the road to observe or record. You believe that you're safely out of the way. You're not trying to obstruct. But if an officer determines that your stationary vehicle hinders their ability to perform, like having an emergency vehicle come or obstructing their line of sight, you have committed a felony.

397. 1:22:54

     So for these reasons, we at the ACLU urge the committee to vote no on this bill. However, if it is the will of the committee to move forward on this bill, we would like you to consider to remove the word stationary from the language. Thank you, and I yield for questions.

398. 1:23:09

     So just the, the person with the hearing impairment, though, they would not knowingly be obstructing or interfering with the officer, correct?

399. 1:23:17

     I suppose the, the officer could make a good, uh, yeah, or the, the plaintiff could make a good com- good complaint for that, but, or a good argument for it, but-

400. 1:23:27

     The defendant, you mean, or?

401. 1:23:28

     Yeah, excuse me.

402. 1:23:29

     Okay, so-

403. 1:23:29

     I'm sorry

404. 1:23:29

     ... to answer the-

405. 1:23:30

     It's been a long day.

406. 1:23:31

     No, I understand. Us, um, other questions from the committee? All right, thank you.

407. 1:23:38

     Thank you.

408. 1:23:39

     Last up, Brooke Mills.

409. 1:23:49

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate coming back up. Um, I would like to echo much of the sentiments shared by the ACLU, because I am legally deaf. Um, and for being able to communicate, especially with an officer or people in general, it can be quite difficult, because while I'm pretty solid at lip reading, I- Unfortunately, that doesn't always, always work. Um, my, my vision's not al- um, um, I'm always, uh, I'm looking in the right place. Some people, um, um, talk funny, so it, it can get a bit tricky.

410. 1:24:23

     Um, and while the knowingly does help, um, um, help with the language there a bit, it would help if an additional m- line were added to, um, to, to flesh out protections for those who are unknowingly obstructing. Because I know fir- fir- for myself, I have been, been told by, um, um, individ- uh, individuals, um, I don't recall any interactions with law enforcement, but individuals to, um, move my vehicle 'cause I'm blocking something, a, a, a food truck or something of the sort, and I have no idea what these people are saying.

411. 1:24:55

     Um, I don't, un- unfortunately, I'm not able to afford crossover hearing aids. Those are thousands of dollars, and my hear- um, um, um, hearing loss is much too profound to be able to benefit from a generic hearing aid. So I, I would... Um, um, ideally, this bill ju- um, just get, gets left by the wayside. We already have some pretty s- um, strong statutes and code to manage this, but if the, um, committee wills it to move this forward, um, it should be done so with amendment.

412. 1:25:26

     All right. Thank you. You do have a question? All right. Now would be the... You're good. Now would be the proper time.

413. 1:25:37

     Well, I can make a motion that we do pass, uh, Senate Bill, or I'm sorry, House Bill 1076.

414. 1:25:42

     A motion to pass from Senator Beard. Do I have a second?

415. 1:25:45

     I've got to call her for that in a while ago.

416. 1:25:48

     Do I have a second?

417. 1:25:50

     Second.

418. 1:25:50

     Second from Senator McNeel. Is it discussion?

419. 1:25:53

     Yeah.

420. 1:25:53

     All right. Let's move on to discussion. Leader Jones.

421. 1:25:56

     I was going to propose an amendment, Mr. Chair.

422. 1:25:58

     All right.

423. 1:25:59

     On line 15 on page one, just by taking out the word, um, or stationary.

424. 1:26:06

     All right. Removing or stationary on line 15. Is there a second?

425. 1:26:10

     Second.

426. 1:26:12

     We have a amendment proposed and a second. Any discussion on the amendment?

427. 1:26:25

     We can... Leader Jones?

428. 1:26:28

     Yes.

429. 1:26:28

     Oh, sorry, I saw your mic again. I thought you were... All right. Does everybody see the proposed amendment? All those in favor of the amendment, please raise your hand. It is three opposed, three the amendment fails. Now back to the motion to pass. Any other amendments? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It's three oppose, three chair votes in the affirmative, so the bill carries four to three.

430. 1:27:00

     Who is carrying...?

431. 1:27:02

     Uh, Senator Dixon.

432. 1:27:03

     Senator Dixon's carrying it. Okay.

433. 1:27:08

     All right. We will move on to the next bill on the agenda, House Bill 1121. Come on down, Rep Williams. Earlier, you know, I like to play music when I start my committee, but I heard you brought your own song to... I don't want to interfere with that. Do you want to play it for the whole committee now?

434. 1:27:27

     Actually, it was, I was going to Twitter and something popped up and I couldn't stop it, and, you know, it's like in church when there's something wrong.

435. 1:27:34

     Well, I just wanted to give you a chance to play it for the committee now, if you'd like. We have time.

436. 1:27:37

     It's probably something else that would come up.

437. 1:27:38

     Okay. Well, we can move on.

438. 1:27:40

     Yeah. But, uh, and Don, I'm, I'm very sorry, but I certainly didn't mean to do that. Um, you talk about a simple bill. Well, this one's a very-

439. 1:27:48

     We're working off, we're working off LC492855S. It's a substitute. What he's about to tell you is he had a simple bill and we made it more complicated. Go ahead.

440. 1:27:55

     Yes. Yes. It was very simple. All I was doing was changing the effective dates for the Cordele Circuit, um, Superior Court for Cordele, for, uh, Ben Hill, Crisp, Dooly, and Wilcox Counties to January and July the 1st. And so that was, everything was going well, and then I had a call asking, "Hey, Noel, we're gonna do this amendment." I'm like, "Sure, okay." So we added an amendment, um, authorizing the court clerks to retain monies collected from forfeiture bonds in the court registry until the time allowed by law for remission expires.

441. 1:28:29

     Um, basically, it revises terms of the court and the, um, mine did, the judicial circuit, and then authorizes the court clerks to retain monies collected from forfeiture bonds in court registry. Um, and with me, I have the legislative council, um, that came up with the sub, and I am going to let them take the mic and, and go.

442. 1:28:53

     Ms. Rice.

443. 1:28:53

     Hi. I'm Rachel Rice. I'm the executive director of the Georgia Superior Court Clerk's Cooperative Authority, and we are the central repository for some of the monies that are collected as a result of bond forfeitures. Um, so we worked in conjunction with other groups as far as addressing, uh, just the issue related to bonds that when a bond is forfeited, there is a period of time where it is subject to a refund, which also includes the statutory surcharges and deductions.

444. 1:29:24

     And in essence, the courts are required by law to pay out those monies typically by the end of the month following forfeiture, whereas the refund period can be in excess of two years. So all this does is basically take all those surcharges and the monies and allows the courts to keep them in a court registry till the refund period expires. And then at expiration, then they would disperse them in accordance with the way they would now. Or if prior to that, if it's subject to a refund, they can simply refund, and then the counties and the cities aren't losing out on any monies that have already been paid out to beneficiaries.

445. 1:30:01

     Any questions for Chairman Williams or Ms. Rice? All right. What's the pleasure of the committee?

446. 1:30:13

     Motion do pass by committee substitute. You seem so excited. Is there a second?

447. 1:30:18

     Second.

448. 1:30:18

     Second. There we go. Any discussion? All those in favor, raise your hand. It is unanimous. And have you selected someone to carry the bill in the Senate?

449. 1:30:28

     Well, I was thinking about the scholarly senator on the end, Steven McNeel.

450. 1:30:33

     He needs something else to do, so it's-

451. 1:30:34

     I think he'd be a perfect choice.

452. 1:30:37

     All right.

453. 1:30:38

     Thank you so much.

454. 1:30:38

     Sounds great.

455. 1:30:39

     S- sorry for the music while ago.

456. 1:30:40

     Thank you. That's all right. I'm just sorry you wouldn't play it for us now when you had the chance, but-

457. 1:30:43

     I probably could find it

458. 1:30:44

     ... uh, it's probably best. All right. House Bill 1142, come on down. Rep Hagan, working off the version that passed the House, LC620467S.

459. 1:31:00

     That's correct.

460. 1:31:01

     All right, the floor is yours.

461. 1:31:02

     All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Uh, it is a very sad fact that we need this legislation here in Georgia, but I do believe that it is very needed. Last year, over 160, uh, people in our state lost their lives to domestic violence. This bill creates a searchable registry of repeat domestic violence offenders- ... which would be maintained by the GBI. Its goal is to provide the public with a resource containing re- relevant information about individuals who have been convicted more than once of a domestic violence offense, and save lives by doing so.

462. 1:31:44

     I've spoken with multiple directors of domestic violence and sexual assault centers and survivors who support this legislation, and they feel confident that this will save lives, and I believe some of them have, have come and signed up to testify. So who does this apply to? Uh, upon receiving a court order from the convicting court of the second conviction for a domestic violence offense after January 1st of 2027, an offender would be placed on the registry by GBI.

463. 1:32:19

     And what we have found is that if a person has been convicted twice of domestic violence offenses, this is an established pattern of violence and abuse, and they're very likely to do it again. Uh, there was an issue with determining what the definition would be or who, who would actually appear on this registry, because there are no domestic violence charges in the Georgia Code currently, only dating violence and family violence.

464. 1:32:55

     So after several conversations with a lot of stakeholders and many subs, we, we came to what you have here in this current, um, bill. And the result is that we have made a definition in reference to this registry of domestic violence offenses. And you'll see that, I believe, on, uh, that's on page two of the bill.

465. 1:33:25

     I worked with, um, several attorneys on it, including PAC, and PAC's neutral on the bill, by the way. They, they help- they did help me with the definition, and we feel comfortable that this is something that will work for our prosecuting attorneys as, as we determine who needs to appear on the registry. So we want this registry to meet its intended goal and nothing more.

466. 1:33:56

     So we included in, in the language that an offender would roll off the registry automatically after a period of time. After two convictions, or with two convictions, they would be removed after five years, and three or more convictions, it'd be 10 years for each one of those convictions.

467. 1:34:20

     Um, we also... Oh, we heard some con- some concerns that, uh, there were some privacy issues, perhaps for family members of these offenders, so we were very careful to specify in the bill what information would and would not be included on the registry. We want to minim- minimize any unintended consequences of a repeat offender appearing on the registry. And I want to make su- sure we're very clear here that this would only apply to offenses that are committed after January 1st of 2027.

468. 1:34:55

     We want to be very careful that we did not, um, violate anyone's due process here with this. So, um, I want to stop domestic violence in this state. But just as important, I, I don't want it to start. I don't want it to start in relationships, and I feel like this registry would give people in this state a resource to protect themselves, and in many cases, their children, from entering relationships with these violent repeat offenders.

469. 1:35:28

     So Mr. Chairman, that, that is the summary of the bill. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

470. 1:35:34

     So logistically, looking at lines 65 through 67, is the way this will play out, and if anybody from PAC or prosecutor wants to weigh in, tell me if I'm right or wrong. So after there is a conviction of... 'Cause if we're not creating a new criminal offense, we're not creating a new domestic violence offense-

471. 1:35:53

     Right

472. 1:35:53

     ... but if there is a conviction of something that meets the definition that is being created of domestic violence offense, then a judge would have to make a determination whether or not... I guess that's my question. Because there's no domestic violence offense, would a judge then say, "Okay, because of the conviction we had here and the facts showing this relationship, I'm gonna define that it's been a domestic violence offense for, for the- to the extent the registry is applicable." The judge will make that decision then after trial-

473. 1:36:22

     Well, that-

474. 1:36:22

     ... is the way that works, or after a plea?

475. 1:36:24

     Yeah, it would be up to the judge to issue that court order. So, uh- The way it is worded is exactly what you said. At what defines a domestic violence offense, we, we defined particular charges between particular people. And so in talking with the prosecuting attorneys on it, they assured me that this was something that would be feasible to do for the purposes of the registry, given that we do not have specific domestic violence charges.

476. 1:36:55

     When we're talking about family violence, they, they ha- establish those relationships as well.

477. 1:37:00

     So the prosecutor then, would probably more on the prosecutor on the front end to give notice to a defendant that the plea they're gonna take, or if they're convicted, would be something that would be part, would be applicable to your registry. Is that a safe to say?

478. 1:37:12

     It, it could make them eligible for the registry.

479. 1:37:15

     Okay. You have questions from the committee? Senator Bearden?

480. 1:37:20

     Just trying to grasp here. So, um, I understand the sexual registry. It's even on the Georgia MLS form for a GBI contact. You can go in to see if there's a, someone that's been convicted of a sexual offense on, on that website.

481. 1:37:35

     Mm-hmm.

482. 1:37:36

     And we'll let you know all the places i- in the area that someone is living there for that, uh, uh, for that crime. Um, is this more of a tool to kn- for a victim to know where the abuser is living at, or is, just kind of so it says if my friend to my right here, if he asked my daughter out on a date, which he better not, um, she could go online and see if he's ever been convicted of a domestic violence charge?

483. 1:38:05

     If he has been convicted more than once. Uh, yes. So what, what's, what you'll find on page three are the shall not includes and the shall includes. We, we do not include the individual's address on there, um, because we wanted to make sure that if, family member's privacy would be respected if they still live with that offender. However, we wanted someone, let's say your daughter was thinking about dating a person and she wanted to look and see is this person someone who's had repeat convictions.

484. 1:38:42

     So if they've had repeat convictions, we know there's an established pattern of domestic violence there. And that is, that is the point of the registry, is to provide that tool to someone who's looking at, um, establishing a relationship with someone.

485. 1:38:57

     Follow-up, Mr. Chairman.

486. 1:38:58

     Mm-hmm.

487. 1:39:00

     So if the victim still lives with the abuser, anyone could go onto this website from the GBI, see the name, and then also basically connect the dot to the victim because they know they're still married to them.

488. 1:39:15

     Well, I mean, they might be able to connect the dot, but also keep in mind that if s- if this was a situation where someone could run a background check, that information would already be available with GCIC on their background check. This is just a tool that would make it easier for someone who isn't possibly gonna be savvy or know to go have a background check pulled, or maybe not be able to do that, but they're considering dating someone that they could look at that and see if this is a person with repeat convictions.

489. 1:39:48

     Yeah, I do see what you're trying to do, and I appreciate what you're trying to do. It's just, I almost feel like we're also exposing a victim at the same time. If the victim is living with this person and this person can be pulled up knowing that they commit this crime, uh, that, that is my concern.

490. 1:40:07

     Well, I can understand your concern there. I, I certainly can. I think there might be some speakers that, that could address that, that are gonna be speaking here in a moment.

491. 1:40:20

     What we're looking to do is just provide a tool to keep people safe, and we know that if someone's been convicted, and I understand it's difficult to actually convict someone of these, uh, uh, offenses, if they've been convicted more than once, it's, it's our understanding they're most likely going to continue with this behavior. And so stopping a person from being involved with someone like this could save their life, and that is what we're trying to do here.

492. 1:40:49

     Chairman Still.

493. 1:40:51

     Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Hagan, good to see you. Um, I, uh, passed a bill very recently, uh, that involved some of our friends in the back row behind us there, and, uh, there was a significant expense to creating, uh, a registry-type database. Um, what is GBI saying that this, um, this new creation would, um, put on them as a burden or expense?

494. 1:41:19

     Sure. The last time we spoke about it, they told me it'd be between 3.5 and 4 million to establish the registry.

495. 1:41:26

     Cool. Thank you.

496. 1:41:29

     Any other questions from the committee? Senator Parent.

497. 1:41:32

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for, I definitely appreciate, um, the work you're doing and the intention behind the bill. Um, I guess I'm a little confused still about, so we're not creating new crimes, um, but, you know, the definition in the code re- on these offenses that are related to family violence, I'm still a little confused about why we wouldn't use the term family violence to not create a whole, sort of like a layering where you have to leapfrog from one crime to this other definition.

498. 1:42:06

     Yes. That, that, that's a great point, and we originally started out defining it that way, but questions that came up in House Judiciary Non-Civil were, are there relationships that are included in family violence that we would not necessarily want to be included on the domestic violence registry? And that was the problem, that there are relationships within family violence that I think we would agree aren't what we're looking for when it comes to putting someone on a registry for domestic violence.

499. 1:42:37

     Could you give an example?

500. 1:42:39

     Um, uh, one example that was brought up in committee was, well, cousins who live in the same home, they're part of the same family, they've lived together in the same home, if they commit crimes against one another, maybe assault, that- that's not something that we're, we would be looking to include on, on this registry.

501. 1:43:01

     I see.

502. 1:43:01

     Yes.

503. 1:43:03

     Thank you.

504. 1:43:03

     Mm-hmm.

505. 1:43:04

     Other questions for the author? All right, thank you. Oh, we have another question. Leader Jones.

506. 1:43:11

     I just got one, Mr. Chair. On the, um ... Just trying to figure out, like, the thought process of, of including a person who's been, I guess, on first offender or discharged. How do you kind of reconcile that?

507. 1:43:23

     Sure. With- Those are not in- considered convictions if they're completed successfully. However, solely for the purpose of the registry and whether or not there's exhibited repeat behavior, we felt like counting that as a conviction, solely for whether they would appear on the registry, not for that information to be put on the registry however, that, but that it would be relevant that they had pled first offender or had participated in pretrial diversion.

508. 1:43:54

     And keeping in mind, um, these are for offenses that would be going forward, not anything that's happened in the past, and what we're looking to target is repeat behavior, repeat offending, repeat convictions. So if they've utilized first offender or pretrial diversion, and then they were subsequently convicted of one of these offenses in one of these relationships, it's, it's exhibiting repeat behavior.

509. 1:44:25

     And so that was our thinking there, was that even though it's not a conviction, we, we felt like it exhibited part of repeat behavior, and we wanted to make sure that we took that into account and, when it comes to this registry.

510. 1:44:44

     Any other questions for the author? All right, and if you wanna step aside-

511. 1:44:49

     Sure. Thank you

512. 1:44:49

     ... we'll, the, we have three people signed up to speak on the bill. Zoraida Reyes Garcia.

513. 1:44:57

     Good evening.

514. 1:44:59

     I can stay.

515. 1:45:00

     I can give my seat.

516. 1:45:01

     Okay.

517. 1:45:02

     They're all friendly. They all have the same hand writes, they should be friendly then.

518. 1:45:04

     Okay.

519. 1:45:04

     So you can stay.

520. 1:45:09

     Um, good afternoon, um, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Zoraida Reyes Garcia. I'm interning actually in our House of Representatives. Um, but I have worked, um, side with Rep Hagan. She is the biggest support I've received throughout this whole process. Um, just to give you guys a heads up, this process is, um, it's been three months since I have processed this whole event that has happened to me. But I said as today, I'm not here as an intern, but I am here as a woman who survived dating violence.

521. 1:45:42

     I was in a relationship with someone from the age of 15 through 19, and at the age of 17, the abuse with this person began. One Thursday night, we got into an argument because I was late to a date that we had planned, and I didn't know this would be the first time he'll put his hands on me, and it most definitely wouldn't be the last. I was slapped and pushed into a car so hard that I had a bruise on my lower back for over a week, and the abuse only continued for the next two years, but it only kept on getting worse over time.

522. 1:46:13

     Every time I confronted him about cheating, the violence and control only escalated. Alongside came with the constant emotional abuse. I was belittled for my body, for my skin tone, and for not being good enough. I was called ugly and useless, sometimes because dinner was too salty, sometimes because I had gained weight over the years. I never felt pretty or enough throughout this whole relationship, but in the last few months of our, of our relationship, which had grown into being an engagement, the abuse became so severe that I was pushed down a flight of stairs.

523. 1:46:46

     I was dragged through a parking lot. And when I decided to leave, I walked out of our apartment with just my clothes and basic necessities, thinking leaving would be the best option for me, but that was not the case unfortunately. He had found me, and he had found that I had made plans with friends for dinner. He waited for me, and as I wife, walked back to my car, he attacked me, calling me names no woman should ever be called. He recorded a video making intimate claims about me and posted it online, tagging my workplace, my school, and people close to me.

524. 1:47:17

     The next morning, a protective order was placed, causing me to change my job, making me stop at my, making me stop going to my favorite coffee shop, rearrange my class schedule, and even after this order was placed, he would park outside places he'll know I'll be, and he would wait there for me for hours. To this day, I live with the impact of that violence. When I see a car that looks like him, I enter into a state of panic, and I don't even feel safe being alone. I struggle with self-esteem and trusting my own sense of self. These are the things that don't disappear once the abuse stops. They stay with you long after, and this is why this bill matters to me.

525. 1:47:52

     This registry can save women. It can save the next woman that didn't know about my abuser. It could give them information I wish I had. Too many women speak up once it's already too late. Studies show that 11% of women who seek protective orders are killed within two days of filing. I'm grateful every single day that I'm standing here not being a part of that number, but the truth is another c- woman can be. One in three women in the state of Georgia are victims of physical, emotional, and verbal abuse by a dating partner before the age of 20.

526. 1:48:22

     So this is not isolated or a rare occasion. This is happening in our, in your school, in your neighborhoods, in your communities.

527. 1:48:35

     Being that woman that this happened, I still get fearful every day that it can happen again. So I want this to be a warning. I want this to be a warning for the woman that thinks that man will change, for the one that hasn't been warned yet, and for the one who never thinks it'll happen to her. Because I wish someone would have warned me, and this bill can be that warning to give that woman or even myself a chance to walk away before it even becomes worse. Thank you for listening to me, and I respectfully ask for your heartfelt consideration on House Bill 1142.

528. 1:49:07

     Thank you, Ms. Reyes Garcia-

529. 1:49:09

     Thank you

530. 1:49:09

     ... and thank you for being a voice for some of the other people that wouldn't be able to sit here and do what you just did, so-

531. 1:49:14

     Thank you

532. 1:49:15

     ... thank you.

533. 1:49:15

     Thank you.

534. 1:49:18

     Uh, Michelle, I, I'm sorry, I can't see, can't read your last name. Is it-

535. 1:49:22

     Girtman.

536. 1:49:22

     Oh, okay. Come on down. How do you spell your last name?

537. 1:49:28

     G-I-R-T-M-A-N.

538. 1:49:31

     It looked like a F, sorry. Ms. Girtman. There we go.

539. 1:49:34

     That's okay.

540. 1:49:34

     I'm gonna get it spelled right for our-

541. 1:49:36

     Yeah

542. 1:49:36

     ... our records. Perfect. Thank you for being with us.

543. 1:49:38

     Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. I really don't think I need to say anything. After Ms. Garcia spoke, we got to meet her in our house bill appropriation or house bill committee, and, uh, she sent us all into tears because we see that every day. Betty Dale-

544. 1:49:50

     Mm-hmm

545. 1:49:50

     ... is already crying. Uh, it just, um, it goes to fact that we appreciate Representative Leesa Hagan for taking on this bill and protecting victims. Though all bills are not perfect, and that's what we're hearing from some, there is, there is a reason to start a good bill. Um, I'm an executive director for The Haven in Valdosta and Waycross. I have 17 counties, and I just want to read something. Every day, we meet victims at the most dangerous point of their lives when they are trying to leave the abuser.

546. 1:50:22

     Um, what many don't know and realize is that the violence doesn't usually begin with a single incident. It's a pattern, a pattern that often escalates, and too often, that pattern is invisible to those who could not, who could intervene until it's too late. House Bill 1142 changes that. A domestic violence registry provides critical tool to identify repeat o- offenders, those who move from relationship to relationship, from county to county, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and l- leave a trail of victims behind.

547. 1:50:54

     Right now, the history is often fragmented across jurisdictions, buried in records, or simply unknown to the next victim, law enforcement or, or officers, or even advocates like ourselves. The bill creates transparency where there is currently silence. It allows law enforcement to better assess, uh, risk assessments. It allows courts to make more informed decisions, and most importantly, it gives a victim information that could save their life. And I think that's what you heard tonight, is it could give them, uh, it could give them the power to save their own life.

548. 1:51:29

     Uh, we know from experience, um, the data shows that there's been 70,000 crisis calls in Georgia for domestic violence and over 300,000 bed nights. Um, there's been 163 lives lost, and we're so glad that you're sitting with us today. Um, it's about recognizing that domestic violence is not isolated. Uh, it is, um, it is not predictable, and when something is predictable, it is preventable. Uh, and so we feel like the pattern shows a predictability, and this bill then will make that predictability a reality with the registry and to be able to see who those abusers are.

549. 1:52:07

     Uh, the registry, um, is not punishment. It's not about punishment beyond the law. It's about accountability and awareness simply to those, um, simply to other registries we've already used in public safety, as you've named, uh, the sex offender re- registry. Um, for victims, it is about knowledge and is about power. Like she said, if she would have known or someone else knows who she was dating, do you want your significant loved one, your daughter, your mother, your sister, to be able to go to a registry and say, "You know, he's not the guy that he portrays that he is"?

550. 1:52:43

     Um, w- I understand that someone, a victim can be living in a home with an abuser. I understand your point. Um, but it's after a pattern of behavior and con- and conviction after conviction. Um, someone on the sex offender registry right now could be married to someone else, and they're still published, and so they could be married, and so I understand that. We also here want to protect victims' rights. We think that is very, very important that the victim's rights is protected. We also want to protect the victim that wants to know the information of who that abuser has been conviction after conviction.

551. 1:53:19

     One of my advocates that listened to you tonight speak, um, she sent me something and she said, "Using silence as a safety net for victims is not safe." So the registry is more important, um, for the victim who is trying to not be re-victimized, um, the victim that has a pattern of behavior to maybe dating someone in that category, um, for the person that's been through it that don't want anybody else to go through it.

552. 1:53:49

     So we respectfully ask you to pass Bill 1142.

553. 1:53:55

     All right, Ms. Williams, you want to add anything?

554. 1:53:57

     Yes. Um, I'm Betty Williams. I'm the executive director of the refuge in Vidalia. Uh, Michelle and I had spoken with around 16 directors across the state, and we wanted to get their input to see, uh, do you support the bill, do you oppose the bill? And all that we spoke with said that they supported the bill. So then I decided to do one more step. I wanted to talk to survivors and even those who are currently in our shelter.

555. 1:54:29

     And so we spoke to them, and we told them exactly what the bill was, and we asked them, "Do you feel like this would give you a false sense of security?" Because it is two convictions. And, um, we explained how that worked, and then we asked them, "Do you think this would put you in danger?" And they all said no, that they did not think it would put them in danger, and they did not feel like it was gonna give them a false sense of security.

556. 1:54:59

     Their only concern was to make sure their name was not in the registry, and we assured them that, you know, what, what information would.

557. 1:55:08

     Mm-hmm.

558. 1:55:08

     And it's not even an address-

559. 1:55:10

     Correct

560. 1:55:10

     ... it's just the county where the offense took place.

561. 1:55:13

     Correct.

562. 1:55:14

     And, um, so what we are seeing at our shelter, when my advocates do an intake, we always get the abuser's name, and we put it in this database. Well, we are finding that we're getting repeat and repeat and repeat abusers, and my advocates will come to me and say, "We just had another one by so-and-so."

563. 1:55:38

     The same person.

564. 1:55:39

     Yeah, by the same person.

565. 1:55:40

     The same person.

566. 1:55:41

     And so I do believe that this bill will save lives. And as I said in the House, even if it's one life, that's one life in Georgia we saved.

567. 1:55:52

     And I think you heard earlier about, uh, child predators and someone that knows how to look at a child and knows how to groom that child into s- and, and sexual exploitation. This is no different. Um, abusers know how to do the same thing. So as you protect children, this is just protecting the victim. And though it might need some massaging later in years, uh, we have to start somewhere.

568. 1:56:20

     Right.

569. 1:56:20

     All right. Thank you both for what you do. Any questions from the committee? All right, thank y'all. All right, that's everyone that signed up to speak on the bill. What's the pleasure of the committee? Motion to pass. Motion to pass from Senator Steele. Do we have a second?

570. 1:56:35

     Second.

571. 1:56:38

     Second from Senator McNeel. Any discussion? Senator Parent.

572. 1:56:44

     Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am thinking through, and I can't remember the exact number that you said, Rep Hagan, but the budgetary implication, w- um-

573. 1:56:53

     Around three m-

574. 1:56:55

     3, 3.5 to 4.

575. 1:56:55

     3.5 to 4 million. Um, and I'm assuming there isn't funding in the budget for it right now, b- because it, it's not in law. W- or were you thinking that that would be dealt with in the amended or, um-

576. 1:57:07

     Come back up to the microphone if you will. Chairman Tillery might be watching at least, and Chairman Hatchett, so.

577. 1:57:14

     That, that was what we had discussed, was that we'd wait and see what the will of this committee would be and then, and then look at that going forward.

578. 1:57:22

     Mm-hmm. Either, either now if there's time or in the amended next year. Okay. Thank you.

579. 1:57:28

     Yes.

580. 1:57:28

     Senator Bearden.

581. 1:57:31

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I want to support your bill. I would like to talk to you more about this.

582. 1:57:36

     Sure.

583. 1:57:36

     I walked into a ton of domestic violence situations as a police officer, and I know the most dangerous thing in the world is when the victim decides to stay with the abuser. Anything that sets that individual off could cause a major escalation in violence, and I know that's not what we want to, won't happen with this bill.

584. 1:57:57

     Absolutely not.

585. 1:57:58

     Uh, but I said I want to support the bill, but I do want to talk to you more offline as this thing moves forward.

586. 1:58:03

     I would be happy to.

587. 1:58:04

     Thank you.

588. 1:58:04

     All right, we have a motion to pass, been seconded. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It is unanimous.

589. 1:58:12

     Thank you.

590. 1:58:12

     And thank y'all. Thank you. Who is carrying the bill in the Senate?

591. 1:58:16

     If you are still-

592. 1:58:17

     Okay

593. 1:58:18

     ... willing to do that, I would love for you to do that.

594. 1:58:19

     I do.

595. 1:58:19

     Thank you.

596. 1:58:20

     All right. Thank y'all.

597. 1:58:26

     All right, we got to keep a quorum. We're almost there. If everybody can stick with us, we may not have to have another hearing. Um, I'm gonna briefly present the next bill. Um, what we did with Senate Bill 1215, it's LC492851s, committee substitute. We just combined three of the new judgeships into one bill. This is meant to be a vehicle for the new judgeships while we still work on the budget process. And what we, the ones we put in this bill were the Middle, Northeastern, and Gwinnett judicial circuits, with the intent being potentially those are the ones that the Senate may fund in the budget.

598. 1:59:05

     We'll find out when the budget does come back out. And then also, as I mentioned, this creates a vehicle. So when we finish up, hopefully we will put whichever judgeships we do fund. There are others that wanted, uh, new judgeships as well, including Clayton and Fulton, I know at least, that are not in this. However, it does create that vehicle so we have something moving forward, one bill for our new judgeships. Happy to take any questions on that. Otherwise, I'll take a motion to pass by committee substitute. So moved.

599. 1:59:35

     So moved from the two caucus chairs. Do I have a second? And, um, so, uh, Senator Parent made the motion, Chairman Steele made the second. All those in favor, raise your hand. It is unanimous, I'm assuming. All right. All right.

600. 1:59:52

     Are you good, Chairman?

601. 2:00:03

     All right.

602. 2:00:07

     Chairman Gullett, come on up. Representative Kelley was nice enough to text me and say, "Since you made me wait all night anyway, I'll let this other guy get out early at least." Let's move to House Bill 1432, and this is as passed the House, LC 443547S.

603. 2:00:29

     1432-

604. 2:00:29

     Greg, I think there's a substitute.

605. 2:00:31

     Oh, sub. Sorry. That's- that's correct. It's been a long day. It is a substitute.

606. 2:00:39

     Um-

607. 2:00:39

     We added one other issue to it that is germane, hopefully.

608. 2:00:43

     Hope so.

609. 2:00:44

     We think it is, so it makes it germane.

610. 2:00:45

     That's right.

611. 2:00:46

     All right, the floor is yours.

612. 2:00:47

     Thank you. So I'll start with the- I'll start with the underlying bill. Um, underlying bill is related to what you guys talked about earlier.

613. 2:00:54

     Yeah.

614. 2:00:54

     Uh, the legislative oversight committee, uh, for the Georgia Public Defender Council. Um, today, um, there's no way to provide, um, vacancies to be filled, so this, uh, this gives a way for vacancies to be filled upon resignation or death or ineligibility or whatever reason, uh, the members of that, uh, committee are not, uh, are no longer on the committee. Um, it also makes it unlawful for the, the council director to fail to cooperate with such committee, um, is what the underlying bill is, so it's really just us exerting our, um, oversight, legislative oversight.

615. 2:01:29

     Um, the additional, um, section that was added was the, was the very first one in here, s- 1-2. I did hear this in subcommittee for, uh, in full committee for judiciary non-civil on the House side. It's, um, it's called the Stephanie Colquitt Sherman Act of 2026. Think it's been passed several times in the House, uh, Committee. I don't think it ever got brought up on the House floor, though. Um, what this does today, DNA tests for rape kits, I'm sorry, rape kit tests today are only saved for 12 months or less, um, or, or only for 12 months.

616. 2:02:02

     Um, this moves that to 30 years, so as things progress, uh, these rape kits will have the availability to be there, um, for evidence in the future. Happy to answer any questions.

617. 2:02:14

     You do have questions. Senator Parent.

618. 2:02:17

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thanks for bringing the bill. I like the, um, rape kit change. That's great. My question is really, and I don't wanna belabor this, 'cause we all wanna go home, but, and more on the, um, I'm kind of curious. I believe that I am now, or certainly at many years in my tenure of the Senate, have been on the Legislative Oversight Committee for the Georgia Public Defender Council, and I'm not aware of it ever doing anything. Can you speak to that?

619. 2:02:44

     I'm not on it, so I can't be aware of why it never did anything. Um, I think, um, I think it's an important, um, committee that we need to start doing things on, and I'm trying to revive it, I guess is the best way to say it. Um, I think the first way to do that is to make sure members are or appoint- are appointed, uh, and able to serve. Um, so that's really the first step in getting this process. I think if you look at the underlying bill, uh, I was the chief sponsor. Sam Park, who's the whip in the House-

620. 2:03:12

     Mm-hmm

621. 2:03:12

     ... was second. Burchett, whip in the House for the majority caucus, third. Stacey Evans, fourth. Stan Gunner, fifth. Uh, it's a, it's an important issue on the House side that we're trying to-

622. 2:03:21

     So people are dedicated to actually doing something with this.

623. 2:03:24

     That's right.

624. 2:03:25

     Um, and actually, that was really my hesitation when we discussed the earlier bill at naming this committee-

625. 2:03:31

     Sure

626. 2:03:31

     ... to put someone on the Mandy Ballinger, um, commi- commission, because I was like, "I don't think we're doing anything with this," so.

627. 2:03:37

     Yeah. I think we should.

628. 2:03:38

     Well, thank you for, um, undertaking the effort to revive it.

629. 2:03:41

     Oh.

630. 2:03:42

     Do good work.

631. 2:03:42

     No, thank you.

632. 2:03:45

     Chairman Steele.

633. 2:03:47

     Thank you, Chairman. Um, section one of the bill, is this the Karen Lupton bill that she's been working on for the past four years?

634. 2:03:56

     It is.

635. 2:03:57

     Okay, good. Um, and she is obviously working with you on this to ensure that-

636. 2:04:03

     Yeah, she asked, she asked me if she could hitch a ride, so.

637. 2:04:05

     Perfect. Thank you.

638. 2:04:06

     Mm-hmm.

639. 2:04:07

     She brought the substitute over to me on the floor today herself.

640. 2:04:11

     Okay.

641. 2:04:13

     Any other questions from the committee? We have one person signed up to speak on the bill, Ms. Natalie, is it Gilager? How do you say your name?

642. 2:04:20

     Glazier.

643. 2:04:21

     Glazier. That makes more sense than what I was trying to say. Good evening.

644. 2:04:26

     Good evening. Um, Ms. Ali, uh, Executive Director Ali sends her regrets that she wasn't able to be here. She had a conflict, um, so she sent me. I've brought along letters that can be passed out from her that kind of describe our, um, agency's, um, protocols with how we respond to information requests, a- as we will with the Legislative Oversight Committee, that we're prepared to do that. Um, so good evening, Chairman Strickland and the rest of the committee. Uh, my name is Natalie Glazier. I'm the general counsel for the Georgia Public Defender Council.

645. 2:04:59

     I'm here on behalf of the agency, both the director and the council that are separately named in the bill. Um, the Legislative Oversight Committee was part of our agency's enabling statute. Uh, the committee is supposed to be comprised of eight people, but has only had three members, all from the Senate, since 2020. GPDC welcomes the opportunity to have a full oversight committee, and we have no opposition to the language in the bill that clarifies that those vacancies can be filled in the same way that they were originally filled. Our, our concern is with the proposed language change from, "The council and director shall cooperate with the committee," to, "It shall be unlawful for the council or director to fail to cooperate." We believe the original language is sufficient and holds the council to the same level as, of accountability as other executive branch agencies.

646. 2:05:47

     The director and council are already compelled to cooperate by the language, "Shall cooperate." Uh, there has not been a request from the Legislative Oversight Committee that we know of that hasn't been responded to, but we do strive to be as communicative and transparent as possible with the legislature and its subcommittees In order to address any concerns, we have a written policy that includes a point of contact and a requirement internally to have a quick turnaround to the committee with all the information requested. Uh, because we do have information that's protected by attorney-client privilege, we're concerned that the word unlawful puts the council and the director in a position where there might be an appearance that they are compelled to turn over information without regard to ethics rules.

647. 2:06:27

     Uh, we would rather have a system to communicate with the committee properly and address issues of what can or can't be provided to protect the attorney-c- attorney-client privilege materials. We would ask that the bill simply be amended to remove the language regarding unlawful and leave it as it is, uh, with the rest of the language regarding the, uh, vacancies if the committee deems necessary. Thank you.

648. 2:06:47

     Are any questions from the committee? All right, thank you.

649. 2:06:54

     Do you want to respond to any of that as someone else signed up to speak on the bill?

650. 2:06:57

     Yeah, I will briefly. So, I, I'm the S- subcommittee chair for Appropriations on Judicial. Um, we know that there are trouble, troubles happening with the Public Defender's Council and public defenders, especially Coeur d'Alene circuit, for instance. Um, getting information from them sometimes is difficult, uh, has been difficult, um, as the appropriation side. There is a legislative oversight side. I think, uh, no one, no one is gonna be, um, convicted of not giving, uh, information if it's, if it's, uh, information that's ethically bound.

651. 2:07:33

     I don't think, I don't think any, I don't think anyone could ever get convicted of that. Um, but I do think it's important that we, we say that this information we need is very important, and we need it to do our jobs as legislators to make sure that the, the, um, public defender side of the House, um, not only is there parity with, with the, uh, prosecutor side, but that there are also, um, there's some accountability on that side so we can, uh, make sure we don't have a constitutional crisis like we're about to have.

652. 2:08:02

     All right. As everyone has signed up to speak on the bill, what's the pleasure of the committee?

653. 2:08:07

     Motion to pass.

654. 2:08:08

     Motion to pass by Chairman Steele by committee substitute. Is there a second?

655. 2:08:12

     Second.

656. 2:08:13

     Second from Chair Parent. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. And who is carrying this one in the Senate?

657. 2:08:24

     Tillery.

658. 2:08:25

     Tillery. All right. Thank you. All right, come on up, Representative Kelley. I think it's fitting that maybe, if we're lucky, I'm closing my tenure as Judiciary Chairman with you, as we started together years ago in the House, so I wanted to save you for last for that very reason.

659. 2:08:43

     Well, thank you.

660. 2:08:43

     I thought you might do a tribute to me. You haven't prepared.

661. 2:08:45

     Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I certainly could. Um, I think back now, would have been-

662. 2:08:51

     Let's not tell any stories now. Let's-

663. 2:08:52

     ... 14 years ago when I first signed the diary together. Uh, but some of that may be attorney-client for both-

664. 2:08:59

     Your mic has been cut off, so let's go to House Bill 1303. We are working off of the version that passed the House, LC481783S. Are you now prepared?

665. 2:09:10

     I'm prepared, Mr.-

666. 2:09:11

     All right, go ahead. The floor is yours.

667. 2:09:12

     Mr. Chairman, you know, sitting here late night, end of the agenda, uh, presentations are the second worst thing that can happen to a member. Uh, the first is not getting to be heard at all.

668. 2:09:23

     That's right.

669. 2:09:23

     So thank y'all for staying with me and giving me the opportunity to come before you today. House Bill 1303 is a piece of legislation brought to me, uh, actually by a, by a cousin of mine who's in law enforcement, uh, Bryson Smith, and he, uh, as a patrol officer, he said, "Trey," he said, "You know, we, we see child endangerment statutes when individuals may be, uh, driving under the influence and different things, uh, with a child in the car, but we don't have, uh, any kind of provision for individuals who are engaging, uh, necessarily with the possession of, uh, different, uh, illegal controlled substances." And that's what, uh, House Bill 1303 looked to do.

670. 2:10:05

     It basically say that it, it, uh, anyone who knowingly and unlawfully possesses a Schedule 1, a narcotic, and Schedule 2 or marijuana in the presence of a child under, uh, the age of 14, uh, shall fall under the same penalties as our currently existing child endangerment statutes. And that's, uh, the bill before you, Mr. Chairman.

671. 2:10:27

     Any questions for the author? All right, we have one person signed up to speak on the bill. Ms. Meles, you wanna come down?

672. 2:10:40

     Thanks for sticking with us.

673. 2:10:42

     Absolutely. Um, I'm lovely to, um, that y'all are having me. Um, love what this, this bill does. Um, I just d- don't, I'm not entirely loving the provision on marijuana because as is in Georgia, if y'all are not aware, the, uh, um, the system we have in place in order to dispense medical marijuana is, uh, I'm, I'm a little messy. Love to get that cleaned up in a- in, in another session, but I know all too many people who use it medicinally who may not necessarily be, um, be use, u- using it with a prescription, um, people with chronic pain, people, um, um, um, and that, that type of thing.

674. 2:11:20

     And with the provision here with it using marijuana underline 14, um, that, that just makes me a little, a, a little uneasy because while I'm sure a good judge can adjudicate it, uh, uh, um, compassionately and knowingly, this does muddy the waters just a tiny bit. So if we could just get rid of, uh, of that one, one word, um, I'm, I, I can absolutely get behind this bill and, um, um, hope it gets a home run in the Senate floor.

675. 2:11:52

     All right. Thank you.

676. 2:11:55

     How does that work, like, with medical marijuana? Do you have any response on that?

677. 2:12:00

     Well, it specifically would not impact the provisions of the legislation like we voted on today as a, as a degree. You know, I understand that there are some people who choose to, um, use marijuana. Um- But we have, it, it currently is a illegal drug in Georgia and federally, and, uh, we have made some provisions in state law. I know that's, that's another thing that we've, we've seen, uh, during our time up here, is the evolution of how cannabis oil and other things can be used medically.

678. 2:12:32

     I think that there's adequate provisions in state law today for individuals who feel that they need to treat their medical conditions using cannabis. And, uh, I don't think that anything in this legislation undermines that, and I hope, in fact, it would encourage individuals who do feel they need that, uh, to seek the proper methods through their doctor.

679. 2:12:52

     So if you have a legal cannabis, that would not be marijuana under this bill like you've written it, right?

680. 2:12:59

     That's correct.

681. 2:13:00

     Okay. It's the proper time. It is the proper time. Motion do pass- Motion do pass ... from Chairman Beard. Do we have a second?

682. 2:13:09

     Second.

683. 2:13:10

     Second from Chairman Still. All those in favor of the bill, please raise your hand. Just making sure they're all still awake. Leader Jones. All right. We have four in fav- Oh, you're in favor, okay. Nope. All right, four in favor, one opposed. And who is carrying the bill?

684. 2:13:29

     I'll leave that up to the chairman's discretion.

685. 2:13:36

     All right, we'll figure it out. Thank you.

686. 2:13:37

     We can talk about it later. I know, uh ... I don't wanna hold anything up with

687. 2:13:40

     Do you wanna go ahead and present your last one, House Bill 1470?

688. 2:13:45

     You know, this is the time when, when Leesa on our side of the speaker would say, "This is one we've been waiting for, y'all."

689. 2:13:50

     That's right.

690. 2:13:50

     Uh, House Bill 1470, uh, deals with, uh, situations where frivolous lawsuits are being brought against small businesses, uh, claiming that they are in violation of the federal ADA. I wanna be very clear that I don't wanna do anything in this legislation to prevent valid claims, uh, that could exist for individuals suffering disabilities to be brought. I grew up with a grandmother that was blind, and, uh, I, I saw the way she struggled. Um, and so there's nothing in my, my fiber of my being that would, that would want to undermine an individual, uh, from getting the protections that they, they need.

691. 2:14:27

     But we're seeing our small businesses held hostage, uh, by out-of-state litigants who are, uh, bringing claims, uh, to simply try and force settlements on them, uh, in lieu of trying to hire an attorney to defend these cases. Uh, there's some question as to whether the, um ... There are guidelines that, that don't even really exist as it relates to small businesses, but they're being alleged. Uh, and a lot of these do get sorted out, uh, and dismissed in the court, but only after the small business has had to expend funds to retain an attorney, uh, to do so, and that's the, uh, premise of the bill.

692. 2:15:04

     I'm proud to say it has the, uh, the support of, uh, our chambers, our s- uh, NFIB, uh, and the language was also, uh, drafted, uh, seeking input from the, uh, trial bar as well. So I hope we struck a good balance here.

693. 2:15:20

     Closing things out with some good tort reform. We knew that Trey Kelley would be for tort reform eventually, and we got here this year.

694. 2:15:26

     Oh, I always support tort reform when I feel it's necessary.

695. 2:15:30

     There you go. I have to say, I, I ... When I first heard about this bill, I've, I've seen this firsthand. There's a business owner in my town that got one of these demands, and what they wanted was money from him. It scared him.

696. 2:15:42

     Mm.

697. 2:15:43

     And it was ... And I had to pro bono writing a nasty letter back to the lawyer and they went away.

698. 2:15:48

     Mm.

699. 2:15:49

     But how many people would just pay to, to not be sued potentially? And, um, it's sad that they use the ADA to, to threaten these things, too. And so I- I'm glad to see this bill. Any questions from the committee? And we do have Ms. Melz. Are you wanting to be heard on this bill? Come on down. You can close us out.

700. 2:16:14

     Uh, not a whole lot to say. It's a solid bill, fan- it's fantastic. Um, and s- simply put, the, um, burden that's been put and placed on small business owners under the amendment to the ADA and through the regulations of the EEOC have been a bit tenuous for small business owners, and that has invited, um, uh, these litigation mills that are simply using AI tools to mass analyze, um, sites they might, might, might have made with Wix, GoDaddy or any of these other tools where they may not even be, um, aware of the standards being provided.

701. 2:16:53

     And that's another issue with the current federal, um, position, is there is not a clear standard on what's ADA compliant for websites. So, um, at least for, for the private sector. So while we can't necessarily preempt that due to the Supremacy Clause, this does help chill the, the, the moves taken by the, these, these, um, litigation mills. And I appreciate the, the, the rep over here bringing, uh, um, this solid common sense approach to, to the table.

702. 2:17:25

     Um, I hope y'all do, do, um, favorably, um, move it forward and get it to the floor.

703. 2:17:31

     Thank you, Ms. Melz. We appreciate you. Thank you for sticking with us tonight, too. All right. What's the pleasure of the committee? It is the proper time. It is the proper time. Proper time. Chairman Beard, and what's, what, what would you like to do? Motion do pass. Motion do pass. Do we have a second?

704. 2:17:45

     Second.

705. 2:17:46

     Second from the other tort-

706. 2:17:47

     reform champions of the committee. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. Am I carrying this one for you?

707. 2:17:58

     Well, Mr. Chairman, I've always known you to be a champion of both small and large businesses, and I would be honored if you'd be willing to carry this for me on the Senate floor.

708. 2:18:06

     I'll be happy to do it, Mr. Chairman.

709. 2:18:07

     Thank you.

710. 2:18:08

     Or sorry, Representative.

711. 2:18:09

     Thank you. I-

712. 2:18:09

     Me to-

713. 2:18:10

     Haven't quite elevated-

714. 2:18:10

     Me to point that out

715. 2:18:11

     ... to, to, to that level. But, uh, I appreciate y'all, uh, indulging just a lonely representative.

716. 2:18:17

     Thank you. All right. With that, we are adjourned. Thank you.